This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGD. NO . D. L. - 33001 /99 रजिस्ट्री सं० डी० एल०-33001/99

भारत का राजपत्र जयते The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

सं. 18 ]

नई दिल्ली, शनिवार, मई 3 , 2003 /वैशाख 13 , 1925 NEW DELHI , SATURDAY, MAY 3 , 2003/VAISAKHA 13, 1925

No. 18 ]

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह अलग संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग II- खण्ड 3-उप -खण्ड (ii ) PART II-Section 3-Sub- section (ii )

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं StatutoryOrders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (Other than the Ministry of Defence)

CABINET SECRETARIAT New Delhi , the 17th April, 2003 मंत्रिमंडल सचिवालय नई दिल्ली, 17 अप्रैल , 2003

S.O. 1312.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 5, read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act , 1946 (Act No.25 of 1946 ) , the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Karnataka vide Notification No. HD 56 PCR , 2003 dated 3rd April , 2003, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Karnataka för investigation of offences against Shri I.P. Venkataramanappa, Scientist E- 1 , National Aerospace Laboratories , Bangalore and others punishable under Section 120 - B r/w 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13 ( 2) read with 13 ( 1 ) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act 49 of 1988 ) and attempts , abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with one or more of the offences mentioned above and any other offence or offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .

का. आ. 1312.- केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए कर्नाटक राज्य सरकार की अधिसूचना सं. एचडी56 पीसीआर, 2003 दिनांक 3 अप्रैल , 2003 द्वारा प्राप्त कर्नाटक राज्य सरकार की सहमति से श्री आई.पी. वेंकटरमनप्पा, वैज्ञानिक ई-1, नैशनल एरोस्पेस लैबोरेट्रिज, बंगलौर और अन्यों के विरुद्ध भारतीय दंड संहिता 1860 की धारा 120- बी सपठित धारा 420 तथा भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम , 1988 ( 1988 का केन्द्रीय अधिनियम 49 ) की धारा 13 (2) सपठित धारा 13 ( 1 ) (डी) के अधीन दंडनीय अपराधों और उपर्युक्त अपराधों में से एक अथवा अधिक से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त प्रयत्नों, दुष्प्रेरणों और षडयंत्रों तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किसी अन्य अपराध अथवा अपराधों के अन्वेंषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्योंकी शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण कर्नाटक राज्य पर करती है ।

[No. 228/27/2003 - DSPE (i) ] SHUBHA THAKUR, Under Secy.

[सं. 228/27/ 2003-डीएसपीई ( i ) ] शुभा ठाकुर, अवर सचिव

(3397)

1154 GI /2003 3398

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003/VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल्ली, 17 अप्रैल, 2003

जिला गंजम में दर्ज मामला सं. 30 ( 9 ) दिनांक 23-03-2002 और उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत उक्त अपराधों से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त प्रयत्न, दुष्प्रेरण और षडयंत्र के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण उड़ीसा राज्य पर करती है ।

[सं . 228/26/2003-डी.एस.पी.ई. ] शुभाठाकुर, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 17th April , 2003

का. आ. 1313.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए कर्नाटक राज्य सरकार की अधिसूचना सं. एचडी 58 पीसीआर, 2003 दिनांक 3अप्रैल, 2003 द्वारा प्राप्त कर्नाटक राज्य सरकार की सहमति से श्री ए.के. जुत्शी, निदेशक ( वित्त ) हिंदुस्तान एरोनॉटिक्स लिमिटेड, बंगलौर और अन्यों के विरुद्ध भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम, 1988 ( 1988 का केंन्द्रीय अधिनियम 49 ) की धारा 13 ( 2 ) सपठित धारा 13 ( 1 ) ( ई ) के अधीन दंडनीय अपराधों और उपर्युक्त अपराधों में से एक अथवा अधिक से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त प्रयत्नों, दुष्प्रेरणों और षडयंत्रों तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किसी अन्य अपराध अथवा अपराधों के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण कर्नाटक राज्य पर करती है ।

[सं. 228 /27/2003 -डीएसपीई ( ii) ] शुभा ठाकुर, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 17th April , 2003

S.O. 1314.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act , 1946 (Act No.25 of 1946 ), the Central Government in pursuance of Order, dated 29-10-2002 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa , Cuttak, in CRMC 5483/2002, hereby extends the powers and Jurisditiori of the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Orissa for investigation of Case No. 30(9) dated 23-3-2002 registered atKhallikote Police Station , District Ganjam under section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and attempt , abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the said offences , committed in the course of the same transaction arising out of the same facts.

[No. 228 /26/2003 - DSPE ] SHUBHA THAKUR , Under Secy. नई दिल्ली, 17 अप्रैल, 2003

S.O. 1313.-In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 , read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act , 1946 (Act No.25 of 1946 ) , the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Karnataka vide Notification No. HD 58 PCR , 2003 dated 3rd April, 2003, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Karnataka for investigation of offences against Shri A.K. Zutshi, Director ( Finance), Hindustan Aeronauties Limited, Bangalore and others punishable under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1 ) ( e) of Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 ( Central Act 49 of 1988) and attempts , abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with one or more of the offences mentioned above and any other offence or offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .

[No. 228/27/2003 - DSPE (ii )] SHUBHA THAKUR, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 17 अप्रैल, 2003

का. आ. 1314.- केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और सीआरएमसी 5483/2002 में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय उड़ीसा, कटक द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 29-10-2002 के अनुसरण में आवश्यक वस्तुअधिनियम , 1955 की धारा 7 के अधीन खल्लीकोटे पुलिस स्टेशन,

का. आ. 1315.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए कर्नाटक राज्य सरकार की अधिसूचना सं. एचडी 43 पीसीआर, 2003 दिनांक 10 मार्च, 2003 और शुद्धिपत्र दिनांक 22-03-2003 द्वारा प्राप्त कर्नाटक राज्य सरकार की सहमति से ( 1 ) श्री ए. वासुदेवन, सहायक महाप्रबंधक, सिंडीकेट बैंक, रीजनल कार्यालय, मैसूर (2 ) श्री के. एन. जी. राव, पूर्व प्रबंधक (क्रेडिट ) सिंडीकेट बैंक, सदाशिव नगर शाखा, बंगलौर ( 3 ) श्री रघुपति, मुख्य प्रबंधक ( आईटी ), सिंडीकेट बैंक, का निगमित कार्यालय, बंगलौर (4 ) श्री पी. डी.एस.आर.वी. प्रसाद, प्रबंधक भागीदार , मैसर्स वैंकटलक्ष्मी कंसट्रक्शन्स, निवासी फ्लैट नं. 201 , विजय सदन, संजीव रेड्डी नगर, हैदराबाद ( 5 ) श्री एन. वेंकटरमन रेड्डी, प्रबंधक ( आईटी ) , सिंडीकेट बैंक, का निगमित कार्यालय, बंगलौर एवं किन्हीं अन्य लोक सेवकों अथवा व्यक्तियों के विरुद्ध भारतीय दंड संहिता 1860 की धारा 420, 468 और 471 तथा भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम, 1988 ( 1988 का केन्द्रीय अधिनियम 49 ) की धारा 13 (2) सपठित धारा 13 ( 1 ) (डी) के अधीन दंडनीय अपराधों और उपर्युक्त अपराधों में से एक अथवा अधिक से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त प्रयत्नों, दुष्प्रेरणों और षड्यंत्रों तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत 3399 भारत का राजपत्र: मई 3, 2003/वैशाख 13, 1925

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

किसी अन्य अपराध अथवा अपराधों के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता काविस्तार सम्पूर्ण कर्नाटक राज्य पर करती है ।

[सं. 228/25/2003 - डी.एस.पी.ई. ] शुभाठाकुर, अवर सचिव

किसी अन्य कानून के अधीन दंडनीय अपराधों और उक्त अपराधों में से किसी एक अथवा अधिक से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त आपराधिक षंड्यंत्र, प्रयत्न और दुष्प्रेरण तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए किसी अन्यअपराध अथवा अपराधों और उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किसी अन्य अपराधों अथवा इन्हीं अपराधों में से एक से संबंधित अपराध के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार संपूर्ण उड़ीसा राज्य पर करती है । New Delhi , the 17th April, 2003

[सं. 228/21 /2003 - डी.एस.पी.ई. ( i ) ] शुभाठाकुर, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 17th April , 2003

S. O. 1316.-In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 5 , read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act , 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946) , the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Orissa, Home Department accorded vide Notification No , CP/ PCM-3/2001 / 1220 dated 6th January 2003 , hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Orissa for investigation of offences punishable under Section 13 (2) read with 13 ( 1 ) ( d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and any other law and criminal conspiracy , attempt , abetment in relation to or in connection with one or more of the offences mentioned above and any other offence or offences committed in the course of same transaction and arising out of the same facts or in connection with one of the offences committed in respect of award of contract and execution of " Construction of Flood Embankment- cum- Ring Road of Sambalpur Town-Ist Phase-Reach - 11 Sub- Reach - III (from RD 6 K.M. to 7 K.M. ) " during the period from 1995 to 2001,

S. O. 1315.- In exercise of the powers conferredby Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 5, read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act , 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government, with the consent of the State Governrnent of Karnataka , vide Notification No. HD 43 PCR, 2003 dated 10th March 2003 and Corrigendum dated 22-3-2003 , hereby extends the powers andjurisdiction of the members ofthe Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Karnataka for investigation of offences against ( 1 ) Shri A. Vasudevan , Asstt. GeneralManager , Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Mysore (2) Shri K.N.G. Rao , formerly Manager (Credit ), Syndicate Bank , Sadashiva Nagar Branch , Bangalore (3) Shri R. Raghupathy , Chief Manager (IT), Corporate Office of Syndicate Bank, Bangalore (4) Shri P.D.S.R.V. Prasad, Managing Partner , M /s . Venkatalakshmi Constructions , R/ o Flat No. 201 , Vijay Sadan, Sanjeev ReddyNagar, Hyderabad ( 5) Shri N. Venkataramana Reddy, Manager ( IT ) , Corporate Office of Syndicate Bank, Bangalore and any other public servants or persons punishable under Section 420 , 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 and Section 13 (2 ) read with 13 ( 1 ) (d ) of Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 (Central Act 49 of 1988) and attempts , abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with one or more of the offences mentioned above and any other offence or offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .

[No. 228/21 /2003 - DSPE( i) ] SHUBHA THAKUR, Under Secy .

[No. 225/25/2003 -DSPE]

नई दिल्ली, 17 अप्रैल, 2003

SHUBHA THAKUR, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 17 अप्रैल, 2003

का. आ. 1317.- केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा दिल्ली विशष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पहित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उड़ीसा राज्य सरकार , गृह विभाग की अधिसूचना सं. सीपी/पीसीएम -3/2001/1227 दिनांक 6 जनवरी, 2003 द्वारा प्राप्त उड़ीसा राज्य सरकार की सहमति से वर्ष 1995 से 2001 की अवधि के दौरान " सम्बलपुर टाउन के बाढ़ बांध - एवं- रिंग रोड-फस्ट फेज-रौच- II सब - रीच -1 ( आरसी 3.5 केएम से 7 केएम तक) के निर्माण" की निविदा और कार्यनिष्पादन के संबंध में भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम, 1988 की धारा 13 ( 2 ) सपठित धारा 13 ( 1 ) (डी) और भारतीय दंड संहिता, 1860 की धारा 120- बी एवं 420 और किसी अन्य कानून के अधीन दंडनीय अपराधों और उक्त अपराधों में से का. आ. 1316.- केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उड़ीसा राज्य सरकार, गृह विभाग की अधिसूचना सं. सीपी/पीसीएम-3/2001 / 1220 दिनांक 6 जनवरी , 2003 द्वारा प्राप्त उड़ीसा राज्य सरकार की सहमति से वर्ष 1995 से 2001 की अवधि के दौरान " सम्बलपुर टाउन के बाढ़ बांध - एवं- रिंग रोड- फस्ट फेज-रीच- II सब- रीच -111 ( आरडी 6 केएम से 7 केएम तक ) के निर्माण" की निविदा और कार्यनिष्पादन के संबंध में भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम, 1988 की धारा 13( 2 ) सपठित धारा 13 ( 1 ) (डी) और भारतीय दंड संहिता, 1860 की धारा 120- बी एवं 420 और 3400

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] किसी एक अथवा अधिक से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त आपराधिक षंड्यंत्र, प्रयत्न और दुष्प्रेरण तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए किसी अन्य अपराध अथवा अपराधों और उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किसी अन्य अपराधों अथवा इन्हीं अपराधों में से एक से संबंधित अपराध के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार संपूर्ण उड़ीसा राज्य पर करती है ।

किसी एक अथवा अधिक से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त आपराधिक षंड्यंत्र , प्रयत्न और दुष्प्रेरण तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए किसी अन्यअपराध अथवा अपराधों और उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किसी अन्य अपराधों अथवा इन्हीं अपराधों में से एक से संबंधित अपराध के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार संपूर्ण उड़ीसा राज्य पर करती है ।

[सं. 228/21 /2003 -डी.एस.पी.ई. ( ii ) ]

[सं. 228/21/2003- डी.एस.पी.ई. ( iii ) ] शुभा ठाकुर, अवर सचिव

शुभाठाकुर, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 17th April , 2003

NewDelhi , the 17th April, 2003

S. O. 1317. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 , read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act , 1946 ( Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of State Government of Orissa, Home Department accorded vide Notification No. CP/ PCM - 3 /2001 / 1227 dated 6th January 2003 , hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction ofthe members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Orissa for investigation of offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13 ( 1 )(d) ofPrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and any other law and criminal conspiracy, attempt, abetment in relation to or in connection with one or more of the offences mentioned above and any other offence or offences committed in the course of same transaction and arising out of the same facts or in connection with one of the offences committed in respect of award of contract and execution of "Construction of Flood Embankment- cum- Ring Road of Sambalpur Town Sub - reach No. 1 ofReach- II of Ist Phase ( RC 3.5 K.M. to 7 K.M.) " during the period from 1995 to 2001.

S. O. 1318.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 5, read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act , 1946 ( Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Orissa, Home Department accorded vide Notification No. CP/PCM -3 /2001 / 1233 /CP dated 6th January 2003 , hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Orissa for investigation of offences punishable under Section 13 (2 ) read with 13 ( 1 ) ( d) of Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 and Sections 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and any other law and criminal conspiracy, attempt , abetment in relation to or in connection with one or more of the offences mentioned above and any other offence or offences committed in the course of same transaction and arising out of the same facts or in connection with one of the offences committed in respect of award of contract and execution of "Construction of Flood Embankment - cum- Ring Road of Sambalpur Town Ist Phase- Reach - 11 Sub Reach- III (from RD 5 K.M. to 6 K.M. ) " during the period from 1995 to 2001 .

[No. 228/21 /2003 -DSPE( ii) ]

[No. 228/21 /2003 -DSPE (iii)) SHUBHA THAKUR, Under Secy.

SHUBHA THAKUR, Under Secy नई दिल्ली, 17 अप्रैल , 2003

नई दिल्ली, 17 अप्रैल, 2003

का. आ. 1318.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उड़ीसा राज्य सरकार , गृह विभाग की अधिसूचना सं. सीपी/पीसीएम -3/2001/ 1233 दिनांक 6 जनवरी , 2003 द्वारा प्राप्त उड़ीसा राज्य सरकार की सहमति से वर्ष 1995 से 2001 कीअवधि के दौरान " सम्बलपुर टाउन के बाढ़ बांध-एवं-रिंग रोड-फस्ट फेज़-रीच- II सब-रीच- III ( आरडी 5 केएम से 6 केएम तक ) के निर्माण" की निविदा और कार्यनिष्पादन के संबंध में भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम, 1988 की धारा 13 (2 ) सपठित धारा 13 ( 1 ) (डी) और भारतीय दंड संहिता, 1860 की धास 120- बी एवं 420 और किसीअन्य कानून के अधीन दंडनीय अपराधों और उक्त अपराधों में से

का. आ. 1319.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उड़ीसा राज्य सरकार, गृह विभाग की अधिसूचना सं . सीपी/पीसीएम -3/2001/1239 दिनांक 6 जनवरी , 2003 द्वारा प्राप्त उड़ीसा राज्य सरकार की सहमति से वर्ष 1996 से 1999 की अवधि के दौरान " भुवनेश्वर में जल सम्पद भवन के निर्माण" की निविदा और कार्यनिष्पादन के संबंध में भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम, 1988 की धारा 13 (2 ) सपठित धारा 13 ( 1 ) (डी ) और भारतीय दंड संहिता, 1860 की धारा 120- ब्री एवं 420 और किसी अन्य कानून के अधीन दंडनीय अपराधों और उक्त अपराधों में से किसी एक अथवा अधिक से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त आपराधिक षडयंत्र , प्रयत्न और दुष्प्रेरण 3401

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3, 2003/वैशाख 13 , 1925

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए किसी अन्य अपराध अथवा अपराधों और उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किसी अन्य अपराधोंअथवा इन्हींअपराधों में से एक से संबंधित अपराध के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार संपूर्ण उड़ीसा राज्य पर करती है ।

[सं. 228/21 /2003-डी.एस.पी.ई.-( iv ) ]

शुभा ठाकुर, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 17th April , 2003

S. O. 1319. In exercise of the powers conferredby Sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 5 , read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946) , the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Orissa, Home Department accorded vide Notification No. CP /PCM - 3 /2001 / 1239/CP dated 6th January 2003 , hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Orissa for investigation of offences punishable under Section 13 (2) read with 13 ( 1 ) ( d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 120- B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 and any other law and criminal conspiracy, attempts , abetment in relation to or in connection with one or more of the offences mentioned above and any other offence or offences committed in the course of same transaction and arising out of the same facts or in connection with one of the offences committed in respect of award of contract and execution of " Construction of Jalasampad Bhawan at Bhubaneswar" during the period from 1996 to 1999.

[No. 228 /21/2003 -DSPE( iv) ]

SHUBHA THAKUR, Under Secy.

वित्त एवं कम्पनी कार्य मंत्रालय

(राजस्व विभाग )

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 24 मार्च, 2003

स्टाम्प

का. आ. 1320.- भारतीय स्टाम्प अधिनियम, 1899 ( 1899 का 2) की धारा 9 की उप - धारा (1 ) के खण्ड (ख ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा फाइव स्टार बिज़नेस क्रेडिट लिमिटेड, चेन्नई को मात्र दो लाख पच्चीस हजार रुपये का समेकित स्टाम्प शुल्क अदा करने की अनुमति प्रदान करती है , जो उक्त कम्पनी द्वारा जारी किए जाने वाले मात्र तीन करोड़ रुपये के समग्र मूल्य के प्रत्येक एक सौ रुपये के 14 प्रतिशत सुरक्षित विमोच्य अपरिवर्तनीय ऋण पत्रों के रूप में वर्णित बंधपत्रों पर स्टाम्प शुल्क के कारण प्रभार्य है ।

[सं. 7/2003- स्टाम्प/फा. सं. 33/71/2001- बि.क. ]

आर. जी. छाबड़ा, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND COMPANY AFFAIRS (Department of Revenue)

ORDER

New Delhi , the 24th March , 2003 STAMPS

S. O. 1320. In exercise of the powers conferredby clause (b ) of Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), the Central Government hereby permits Five Star Business Credits Limited, Chennai to pay consolidated stamp duty of rupees two lakh twenty five thousand only chargeable on account of the stamp duty on bonds described as 14% Secured Redeemable Non Convertible Debentures of rupees one hundred each aggregating to rupees three crore only, to be issued by the saidCompany.

[No. 7/2003 -STAMP/F . No. 33 /71/2001 - ST] R.G. CHHABRA , Under Secy .

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 25 मार्च, 2003

स्टाम्प

का. आ. 1321.- भारतीय स्टाम्प अधिनियम, 1899 ( 1899 का 2) की धारा 9 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) द्वारा प्रदत्तः शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा इंडियन रिन्यूऐबल एनर्जी डेवॅल्पमेंट एजेंसी लिमिटेड , नई दिल्ली को मात्र सैंतीस लाख पचास हजार रुपये का समेकित स्टाम्प शुल्क अदा करने की अनुमति प्रदान करती है, जो उक्त कम्पनी द्वारा जारी किए जाने वाले मात्र पचास करोड़ रुपये के समग्र मूल्य के ऋण पत्रों के स्वरूप वाले 00001 से 500000 तक की विशिष्ट संख्या वाले 6 प्रतिशत कर- मुक्त सुरक्षित विमोच्य अपरिवर्तनीय एनर्जी बंधपत्रों- श्रृंखला X (2002-03 ) पर स्टाम्प शुल्कके कारण प्रभार्य है ।

[सं. 8/2003- स्टाम्प/फा. सं. 33/5/2003 -बि.क. ] आर. जी. छाबड़ा, अवर सचिव

ORDER

New Delhi, the 25th March , 2003'

STAMPS

S. O. 1321.- In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b ) of Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 9 of the Indian StampAct, 1899 (2 of 1899), the Central Government hereby permits Indian Renewal Energy Development Agency Limited, New Delhi to pay consolidated stamp duty of rupees thirty seven lakh fifty thousand only chargeable on account of the stamp duty on 6% tax - free secured redeemable non -convertible Energy Bonds - Series X(2002- 03) bearing distinctive numbers from 00001 to 500000 in the nature of Debentures aggregating to rupees fifty crore only, to be issued by the said Company .

[No. 8 /2003 - STAMP/F . No. 33/5/2003-ST] R. G. CHHABRA, Under Secy.

3402

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)] आदेश

ORDER

नईदिल्ली, 25 मार्च, 2003

New Delhi , the 25th March , 2003

स्टाम्प

STAMPS

S. O. 1323.-In exercise of the powers conferredby clause (b) of Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 9 of the Indian StampAct, 1899 (2 of1899), the Central Government hereby permits the South Indian Bank Limited, New Delhi to pay consolidated stamp duty of rupees twenty five lakh only chargeable on account of the stamp duty on unsecured non -convertible bonds in the nature of promissory notes of rupees twenty five lakh each aggregating to rupees twentyfive crore only , tobe issued by the said Bank.

का. आ. 1322.- भारतीय स्टाम्प अधिनियम, 1899 ( 1899 का 2 ) की धारा 9 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा आन्ध्र प्रदेश पॉवर फाइनेंस कॉपोरेशन लिमिटेड, हैदराबाद को मात्र पांच करोड़ चौब्बीस लाख पचपन हजार रुपए का समेकित स्टाम्प शुल्क अदा करने की अनुमति प्रदान करती है, जो उक्त कॉरपोरेशन द्वारा जारी किए जाने वाले मात्र छह सौ निन्नानबे करोड़ चालीस लाख रुपए के समग्र मूल्यके ऋणपत्रोंके स्वरूपं वाले असुरक्षित अपरिवर्तनीय विमोच्य पॉवर बंधपत्रों ( श्रृंखला 11/2002 एवं श्रृंखला III/ 2002 ) पर स्टाम्प शुल्क के कारण प्रभार्य है ।

[No. 11 /2003- STAMP/F . No. 33/ 11 /2003 - ST] R. G. CHHABRA, Under Secy.

[ सं. 12/2003 - स्टाम्प/फा. सं. 33/12/ 2003- बि.क. ]

आदेश

आर. जी. छाबड़ा, अवर सचिव

ORDER

नई दिल्ली, 27 मार्च, 2003

स्टाम्प

New Delhi , the 25th March , 2003 STAMPS

का. आ. 1324.- भारतीय स्टाम्प अधिनियम, 1899 ( 1899 का 2 ) की धारा 9 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा महाराष्ट्र स्टेट फाइनेंशियल कॉरपोरेशन, मुम्बई को मात्र तीन लाख छियासी हजार दो सौ पचास रुपये का समेकित स्टाम्प शुल्क अदा करने की अनुमति प्रदान करती है , जो उक्त कॉरपोरेशन द्वारा जारी किए जाने वाले मात्र पांच करोड़ पन्द्रह लाख रुपये के समग्र मूल्य के ऋणपत्रों के स्वरूप वाले 8 प्रतिशत एमएसएफसी बंधपत्रों 2012 ( 80वीं श्रृंखला ) पर स्टाम्प शुल्क के कारण प्रभार्य है ।

S. O. 1322. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), the Central Government hereby permits Andhra Pradesh Power Finance Corporation Limited , Hyderabed to pay consolidated stamp duty of rupees five crore twenty four lakh fifty five thousand only on account of the stamp duty on Unsecured Non- Convertible Redeemable Power Bonds ( Series 11/2002 and Series 111/2002 ) in the nature of debentures aggregating tô rupees six hundred ninety nine crore fourty lakh only, to be issued by the said Corporation.

[सं. 5/2003- स्टाम्प/फा. सं . 33/6/ 2003- बि.क. ]

आर. जी. छाबडा, अवर सचिव [No. 12/2003 - STAMP/F. No. 33/12/2003 -ST] R.G. CHHABRA, Under Secy.

आदेश

ORDER

नई दिल्ली, 25 मार्च , 2003

स्टाम्प

New Delhi , the 27th March , 2003 STAMPS

का. आ. 1323.-भारतीय स्टाम्प अधिनियम, 1899 ( 1899 का 2) की धारा 9 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ख ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा साऊथ इंडियन बैंक लिमिटेड, नई दिल्ली को मात्र पच्चीस लाख रुपए का समेकित स्टाम्प शुल्क अदा करने की अनुमति प्रदान करती है, जो उक्त बैंक द्वारा जारी किए जाने वाले मात्र पच्चीस करोड़ रुपए के समग्र मूल्य के पच्चीस- पच्चीस लाख रुपये प्रत्येक के प्रोमिसरी नोटों के स्वरूप वाले असुरक्षित अपरिवर्तनीय बंधपत्रों पर स्टाम्प शुल्क के कारण प्रभार्य है ।

S. O. 1324. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of Sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 9 of the Indian StampAct, 1899 (2 of 1899), the Central Govemment hereby permits Maharashtra State Financial Corporation , Mumbai topay consolidated stamp duty of rupees three lakh eighty six thousand two hundred fifty only chargeable on account ofthe stamp duty on 8 % MSFC BONDS 2012 ( 80th Series ) in the nature of Debentures aggregating to rupees five crore fifteen lakh only , to be issued by the said Corporation.

[सं. 11 /2003 - स्टाम्प/फा. सं. 33/11/2003-बि.क. ]

आर. जी. छाबड़ा, अवर सचिव

[No. 5/2003 -STAMP/F . No. 33/6/2003-6T] R. G. CHHABRA, Under Secy.

3403

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3, 2003/वैशाख13, 1925

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

( ii ) केन्द्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापिस ले लेगी यदि उद्यमः आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 27 मार्च , 2003

(क) अवसंरचनात्मक सुविधा को जारी रखना बंद कर देता है, और

स्टाम्प

(ख) खाता बहियों का रख - रखाव नहीं करता है तथा आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 2ङके उप नियम (7 ) द्वारा यथा अपेक्षित किसी लेखाकार द्वारा ऐसे खातों की लेखा परीक्षा नहीं कराता है, अथवा

(ग) आयकर नियमावली , 1962 के नियम 2ङके उप नियम (7 ) द्वारा यथा अपेक्षित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करता है ।

3. अनुमोदित उद्यम/ औद्योगिक उपक्रम है:-

का. आ. 1325.- भारतीय स्टाम्प अधिनियम, 1899 ( 1899 का 2 ) की धारा 9 की उप धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा यूको बैंक, कोलकाता को मात्र एक करोड़ सत्रह लाख साठ हजार रुपये का समेकित स्टाम्प शुल्क अदा करने की अनुमति प्रदान करती है , जो उक्त बैंक द्वारा जारी किए जाने वाले मात्र एक सौ पचास करोड़ रुपये के समग्र मूल्य केप्रोमिसरी नोटोंके स्वरूप वाले असुरक्षित विमोच्य गौण निजी तौर पर आवंटित किए गए बंधपत्रों ( श्रृंखला- III ) पर स्टाम्प शुल्क के कारण प्रभार्य है।

[सं. 9/2003- स्टाम्प/फा. सं. 33/7/2003 -बि.क. ]

आर. जी. छाबड़ा, अवर सचिव ORDER

मैसर्स काकिनाडा सी- पोर्टस लि. ( पूर्व कोकानाडा पोर्ट कम्पनी प्राईवेट लिमिटेड ) , ईस्ट इंडिया चैम्बर्स , तीसरा तल- 3 , विलेज रोड, नन्गामबक्कम्, चैन्नई-600034, को आन्ध्र प्रदेश में काकिनाडा पत्तन पर बाद में जोड़ी जाने वाली एक चौथी बर्थ के निर्माण , संचालन और प्रबंधन के साथ- साथ तीन मौजूदा बर्थों के संचालन और प्रबंधन की उनकी परियोजना के लिए ।

New Delhi , the 27th March, 2003 STAMPS

[अधिसूचना संख्या 82/ 2003/फा.सं. 205/37/2000-आयकर नि- II ]

संगीता गुप्ता, निदेशक ( आयकर नि.- II )

CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

New Delhi , the 16th April, 2003 S. O. 1325. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b ) of Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899 ) , the Central Government hereby permits UCO Bank , Calcutta to pay consolidated stamp duty of rupees one crore seventeen lakh sixty thousand only chargeable on account ofthe stamp duty on Unsecured Redeemable Subordinated Privately Placed Bonds (Series- III ) in the nature of Promissory Notes aggregating to rupees one hundred fifty crore only, to be issued by the saidBank.

S. O. 1326. It is notified for general information that enterprise/ industrial undertaking , listed at para (3 ) below has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of section 10 (23G ) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 , read with rule 2E of the Income -tax Rules , 1962, for the assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04.

[No. 9/2003 - STAMP /F . No. 33 /7 /2003 -ST]

2. The approval is subject to the condition that- R. G. CHHABRA, Under Secy.

केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड

नई दिल्ली, 16 अप्रैल, 2003 .

(i) The enterprise/ industrial undertaking will conform to and comply with the provisions or section 10 (23G) ofthe Income - tax Act , 1961 , read with rule 2E ofthe Income- tax Rules , 1962;

(ii) The Central Government shall withdraw this approval if the enterprise/ industrial undertaking:-

(a) ceases to carry on infrastructure facility; or का. आ. 1326.- सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 2 ङ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 10 (23-छ ) के प्रयोजनार्थ कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2001-02,2002-03 और 2003-2004 तक के लिए नीचे पैरा 3 में उल्लिखित उद्यमों/औद्योगिक उपक्रम को अनुमोदित करती है ।

2. यह अनुमोदन इस शर्त के अधीन हैकिः-

(b) fails to maintain books of account and get such accounts audited by an accountant as required by sub - rule (7) of rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962; or

(i) उद्यम औद्योगिक उपक्रम आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 2ङ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 10 ( 23 - छ ) के उपबंधों के अनुरूप होगा और उनका अनुपालन करेगा, 3404

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] 3. The enterprise/industrial undertaking approved is-

New Delhi , the 16th April, 2003

S. O. 1327. It is notified for general information that enterprise/ industrial undertaking , listed at para (3 ) below has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of section 10 (23G) of the Income - tax Act, 1961 , read with rule 2E of the Income - tax Rules , 1962, for the assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 .

M/ sKakinada Seaports Ltd. (formerly Cocanda Port Company Private Limited) , East India Chambers , 3rd Floor, 3, Village Road, Nungambakkam , Chennai - 600034 for their project ofoperation and managerment ofthree existing berths along with the construction , operation and management of a fourth berth to be added later at Kakinda Port in Andhra Pradesh . (F.No. 205/37/2000- ITA- II)

2. The approval is subject to the condition that [Notification No. 82/2003 /F.No. 205/37/2000 - ITA- II ] SANGEETA GUPTA, Director (ITA - II )

नई दिल्ली, 16 अप्रैल, 2003

(1) The enterprise/ industrial undertaking will conform to and comply with the provisions of section 10 (23G) ofthe Income - tax Act , 1961 , read with rule 2E ofthe Income-tax Rules , 1962;

(ii) The Central Government shall withdraw this approval if the enterprise/ industrial undertaking:-

(a) ceases to carry on infrastructure facility; or का. आ. 1327.- सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 2ङ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 10 (23-छ ) के प्रयोजनार्थ कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2001-02, 2002-03 और 2003-2004के लिए नीचे पैरा 3 में उल्लिखित उद्यमों औद्योगिक उपक्रम को अनुमोदित करती है।

2. यह अनुमोदन इस शर्त के अधीन है किः-

(b) fails to maintain books of account and get such accounts audited by an accountant as required by sub - rule ( 7) of rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962; or

( i ) उद्यम/औद्योगिक उपक्रम आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 2ङ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 10( 23 - छ ) के उपबंधों के अनुरूप होगा और उनका अनुपालन करेगा,

3. The enterprise / industrial undertaking approved is :-

(ii ) केन्द्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापिस ले लेगी यदि उद्यम/ औद्योगिक उपक्रम :-

( क) अवसंरचनात्मक सुविधा को जारी रखना बंद कर देता है, और

M/sBharti Mobile Ltd. Qutab Ambience , Mehrauli Road, New Delhi - 110030 (Formerly M/s J.T Mobile Ltd ,. Bangalore) for their project of providing cellular services inthe State of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka as per license agreement Nos . 842-52 (A)/95 /VAS ( Andhra Circle ) dated 22-12-95 and 842-53 (B)/96/VAS ( Karnataka Circle ) dated 18-10-96 (F.No. 205/6/2000/ΙΤΑ.ΙΙ )

(ख) खाता बहियों का रख - रखाव नहीं करता है तथा आयकर नियमावली , 1962 के नियम 2 ङके उप नियम ( 7 ) द्वारा यथा अपेक्षित किसी लेखाकार द्वारा ऐसे खातों की लेखा परीक्षा नहीं कराता है, अथवा

(ग) आयकर नियमावली , 1962 के नियम 2ङके उप नियम ( 7 ) द्वारा यथा अपेक्षित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करता है ।

[Notification No. 83 /2003/F.No. 205/6 /2000 - ITA- II ] SANGEETA GUPTA , Director ( ITA - II ) . नई दिल्ली, 16 अप्रैल , 2003

3. अनुमोदित उद्यम/ औद्योगिक उपक्रम है: -

का. आ. 1328.- सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार आयकर नियमावली , 1962 के नियम 2ङ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 10 ( 23- छ ) के प्रयोजनार्थ कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2002-2003,2003-2004 तथा 2004-2005 के लिए नीचे पैरा 3 में उल्लिखित उद्यमों/औद्योगिक उपक्रम को अनुमोदित करती है ।

2. यह अनुमोदन इस शर्त के अधीन है :-

मैसर्स भारती मोबाइल लि० कुतुब ऐमबियन्स, महरौली रोड, नई दिल्ली-110030( पूर्व मैसर्स जे टी मोबाइल लि० , बंगलौर ) को लाइसेंस करार सं ० एन ओ एस 842-52 ( ए ) / 95/वी ए एस ( आंध्र परिमंडल ) दिनांक22-12-95 तथा 842-52 ( बी )/वी ए एस ( कर्नाटक परिमंडल ) दिनांक18-10-96 के अनुसार आंध्र प्रदेश एवं कर्नाटक राज्य में सेल्युयुलर सेवाओं को प्रदान करने वाली उनकी परियोजना हेतु। (फा. सं . 205/6/2000- आयकर नि०- II )

[ अधिसूचना संख्या 83/2003/फा.सं. 205/6/2000- आयकर नि- II ]

संगीता गुप्ता, निदेशक ( आयकर नि- II )

( i ) उद्यम औद्योगिक उपक्रम आयकर नियमांवली, 1962 के नियम 2ङ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 10 ( 23 - छ ) के उपबंधों के अनुरूप होगा और उनका अनुपालन करेगा, 3405

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3, 2003/वैशाख 13, 1925

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

( ii) केन्द्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापिस ले लेगी यदि उद्यम:-

by sub -rule (7) of rule 2E of the Income- tax Rules, 1962; or

(क) अवसंरचनात्मक सुविधा को जारी रखना बंद कर देता है, और

3. The enterprise/ industrial undertaking approved is- (ख ) खाता बहियों का रख - रखाव नहीं करता है और आयंकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 2ङके उप नियम (7 ) द्वारा यथा अपेक्षित किसी लेखाकार द्वारा ऐसे खातों की लेखा परीक्षा नहीं कराता है , अथवा

(ग ) आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 2ङ मे उप नियम (7) द्वारा यथा अपेक्षित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करता है ।

3. अनुमोदित उद्यम/ औद्योगिक उपक्रम हैः-

M/ s . New Tirupur Area Development Corporation Ltd. 85, Santhome High Road, Chennai 600028 for their project ofdevelopment of 185 MLD integrated water supply and sewage project involving (a) supply of potable water towayside village, (b) supply of potable water to TM for domestic and non-domestic purpose , (c) offtake, treatment and disposal of sewage from TM, including low cost sanitation facilities within TM and (d) supply of potable water to industries in the service area on BOT basis . (F.No. 205/152/1999 - ITA -II )

[Notification No. 84/2003 /F.No. 205/ 152 / 1999 - ITA.II ] SANGEETA GUPTA, Director ( ITA . II ) .

(आर्थिक कार्य विभाग )

(बैंकिंग प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 17 अप्रैल, 2003 मैसर्सन्यूतिरूपुर एरिया डेवलपमेंट कारपोरेशन लि० 85 सांथोम हाई रोड, चेन्नई 600028 को बी ओ टी आधार पर ( क ) रास्ते के किनारे वाले गांव को पेय जल की आपूर्ति (ख ) घरेलू एवं गैर घरेलू कार्य के लिए टी एम को पेय जल की आपूर्ति, ( ग ) टी एम के भीतर अल्पलागत की स्वच्छता सुविधाओं सहित टी एम से मल की निकासी, उपचार एवं व्ययन तथा ( घ ) सेवा क्षेत्र में उद्योगों को पेय जल की आपूर्ति वाली 185 एम एल डी स्वीकृत जल आपूर्ति एवं मल व्ययन परियोजना के विकास की परियोजना हेतु । ( फा. सं. 205/152/1999- आई टी ए- II )

[अधिसूचना संख्या 84/2003/फा.सं. 205/152/ 1999-आयकर नि.- II ] संगीता गुप्ता, निदेशक ( आयकर नि. II )

New Delhi, the 16th April, 2003

काःआओ. 1329. बैंककारी विनियमन अधिनियम, 1949 (1949का 10 ) की धारा 56 के साथ पठितं धारा 53 द्वोरा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केंन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक की सिफारिश पर घोषणा करती हैं कि उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के उपबंध सरकारी राजपत्र में इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से 31 मार्च, 2004 तक विरूधुनगर जिला मध्यवर्ती सहकारी बैंक लि० विरूधुनगर ( तमिलनाडु ) पर लागू नहीं होंगे ।

[फा.सं. 1 ( 15 )/2003- एसी ] मंगल मराण्डी, अवर सचिव S. O. 1328. It is notified for general information thatenterprise/industrial undertaking , listed at para (3 ) below has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of section 10 (23G ) of the Income-tax Act , 1961 , read with rule 2E of the Income - tax Rules , 1962 , for the assessment years 2002-2003 , 2003-2004 and 2004-2005.

2. The approval is subject to the condition that-

(i) The enterprise/ industrial undertaking will conform to and comply with the provisions of section 10 (23G) ofthe Income -tax Act , 1961 , read with rule 2E ofthe Income-tax Rules , 1962;

(Department ofEconomic Affairs ) (Banking Division) New Delhi , the 17th April , 2003.

(ii) The Central Government shall withdraw this approval if the enterprise/ industrial undertaking:-

(a) ceases to carry on infrastructure facility; or

(b) fails to maintain books of account and get such accounts audited by an accountant as required

S. O. 1329. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 read with Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 ( 10 of 1949) the Central Government on recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India decalres that theprovisions of Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 11 of the said Act shall not apply to the Virudhunagar District Central Co- operative Bank Ltd. Virudhunagar (Tamil Nadu ) from 115491 /03-2 3406

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAK 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette to 31 March, 2004.

[F.No. 1 ( 15)/2003 -AC] MANGAL MARNDI, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 17 अप्रैल, 2003

का. आ. 1330.- बैंककारी विनियमन अधिनियम, 1949 (1949 का 10 ) की धारा 56 के साथ पठित धारा 53 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक की सिफारिश पर घोषणा करती है कि उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के उपबंध सरकारी राजपत्र में इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से 31 मार्च, 2004 तक जिला सहकारी केन्द्रीय बैंक मर्यादित, टीकमगढ़ (म०प्र ० ) पर लागू नहीं होंगे ।

[फा.सं. 1 ( 16 ) /2003- एसी ] मंगल मराण्डी, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 17th April , 2003

S. O. 1330. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 read with Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 ( 10 of 1949) the Central Government on recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India declares that the provisions of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 11 of the said Act shall not apply to Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Tikamgarh ( M.P. ) from the date of publication of thisnotification in the Official Gazette to 31 March , 2004.

[F.No. 1 (16)/2003 - AC] MANGAL MARNDI , Under Secy.

रसायन और उर्वरक मंत्रालय ( रसायन और पैट्रो- रसायन विभाग) नई दिल्ली, 16 अप्रैल, 2003

का. आ. 1331 - केन्द्रीय सरकार राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजन के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप- नियम (4) के अनुसरण में रसायन और उर्वरक मंत्रालय , रसायन और पैट्रो- रसायन विभाग के नियंत्रणाधीन ' क ' क्षेत्र में स्थित निम्नलिखित कार्यालय को, जिसके 80 % कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, अधिसूचित करती है : -

राष्ट्रीय औषध मूल्य निर्धारण प्राधिकरण, 2 ई/ 21 , झंडेवालान एक्सटेंशन, लिंक रोड, नईदिल्ली-110055

[संख्या ई-11012/ 1/2002-हिन्दी] प्रवीण कुमार तेजयान , निदेशक

[PART II SEC . 3 (ii) ] MINISTRY OF CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS (Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals ) New Delhi , the 16th April , 2003

S. O. 1331. In Pursuance ofSub-rule (4) of Rule 10 ofthe Official Language ( Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify the following office in region ' A' under the administrative control ofMinistry ofChemicals and Fertilizers , Department . ofChemicals and Petrochemicals, the 80% staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi :-

National Pharmaceuticals Pricing Authority, 2E/21 , Jhandewalan Extension , Link Road, NewDelhi- 110055 .

[No. E- 11012/ 1 /2002-Hindi ] P.K. TEJYAN , Director नागर विमानन मंत्रालय नईदिल्ली, 9 अप्रैल, 2003'

का. आ. 1332.- केन्द्र सरकार, भारतीय विमानपत्तन प्राधिकरण अधिनियम, 1994 ( 1994 की सं. 55 ) के खंड 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों काप्रयोग करते हुए श्री एस. के. नरूला, सदस्य (कार्मिक तथा प्रशासन ) , भारतीय विमानपत्तन प्राधिकरण का कार्यकाल 25 अगस्त, 2002 से 31 जनवरी , 2004 , अर्थात्60 वर्ष की आयु होने पर उनकी सेवानिवृत्ति की तिथितक अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक जो भी पहले हो , बढ़ाती है ।

[ सं.ए.पी. 24011 /021 / 2001 - एएआई ]

के. रामकृष्णन, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

New Delhi , the 9th April , 2003

S. O. 1332.- In exercise of the powers conferredby Section 3 ofthe Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 (No. 55 of 1994) the Central Government hereby extends the tenure of Shri S.K. Narula , Member (Personnel and Administration). Airports Authority of India beyond 25th August, 2002 to 31st January, 2004, i.e. the date of his superannuation on attaining the age of 60 years or until further orders , whichever event occurs earlier .

[No. AV-24011/021/2001 -AAI] K. RAMAKRISHNAN , Under Secy.

3407 [भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 3, 2003/वैशाख 13, 1925

स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय

(स्वास्थ्यविभाग )

Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the notification ofthe Government of India in the then Ministry ofHealth, number S.O. 138 , dated the 9th January, 1960, namely;

नईदिल्ली, 21 अप्रैल, 2003

Inthe said notification under the heading, ' Nominated under clause (a)' of Sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 3 , ' for serial number 16 and the entries relating thereto , the following serial number and entries shall be substituted, namely :-

Government of Haryana "

" 16. Dr. O.N. Nagi ,

1027, Sector 24-B,

Chandigarh- 160023

का. आ. 1333.- केन्द्र सरकार ने भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (क ) के अनुसरण में और हरियाणा सरकार से परामर्श करके डा. ओ.एन, नागी, विकलांग शल्य चिकित्सा के प्रो. तथा विभागाध्यक्ष , स्नातकोत्तर चिकित्सा शिक्षा व अनुसंधान संस्थान , चंडीगढ़ को इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तारीख से भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद्के एक सदस्य के रूप में मनोनीत किया है ।

[No. V- 11013/ 1 /2003 -ME ( Policy- 1 ) ] P. G. KALADHARAN , Under Secy.

शहरी विकास और गरीबी उपशमन मंत्रालय अतः अब, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में केन्द्र सरकार एत‌द्वारा भारत सरकार के तत्कालीन स्वास्थ्यमंत्रालय की दिनांक 9 जनवरी, 1960 की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 138 में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है अर्थात्:-

नई दिल्ली, 25 अप्रैल, 2003

उक्त अधिसूचना में ' धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क) के अधीन मनोनीत ' शीर्षक के अन्तर्गत क्रम संख्या 16 और उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टियों के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित क्रम संख्या और प्रविष्टियां प्रतिस्थापित की जाएंगी, अर्थात्:-

हरियाणा सरकार "

का. आ. 1334- भारत सरकार एतद्वारा शहरी विकास और गरीबी उपशमन मंत्रालय के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में संपदा निदेशालय के निम्नलिखित कार्यालय को, जहां 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक अधिकारियों/कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिये प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 केनियम 10 के उप नियम ( 4 ) के अंतर्गत अधिसूचित करती है:-

" 16. डा. ओ. एन. नागी, 1027, सेक्टर-24-बी, चंडीगढ़ -160023

सहायक संपदा प्रबंधक कार्यालय, गाजियाबाद

[सं. ई -11014/4/2000-हिन्दी] [संख्या वी-11013/ 1 / 2003 - एम ई ( नीति -1 ) ]

एम. राजामणि, संयुक्त सचिव पी.जी. कलाधरण , अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND POVERTY ALLEVIATION MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILYWELFARE

(Department ofHealth)

New Delhi , the 25th April ,2003 New Delhi , the 21st April , 2003

S. O. 1334.-The Government of India in pursuance ofsub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language ( Use for the Official purposes of the Union) Rules , 1976 hereby notifies the following office under the administrative control of the Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation, where more than 80% of staff have acquired working knowledge in Hindi:-

S. O. 1333.- Where as the Central Government, in pursuance of clause ( a ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956) and in consultation with the Government of Haryana have nominated Dr. ON . Nagi , Prof. & Head of Orthopaedic Surgery , P.G.I.M.E.R, Chandigarh to be a member of the Medical Council of India with effect from the date of issue ofthis notification .

Office ofAsstt. Estate Manager,Ghaziabad

[No. E - 11014/4/2000-Hindi ] Now, therefore , in pursuarice of the provision ofsub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the said Act , the Central

M. RAJAMANI , Jt . Secy .

[PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

3408

उपभोक्तामामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्तामामले विभाग )

भारतीयमानकब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली, 17 अप्रैल, 2003

का.आ. 1335. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 1988 के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

वर्ष

भाग अनु.

क्रम लाइसेंस

लाइसेंस धारी का नाम व पता

भा मा संख्या

भारतीय मानक काशीर्षक

सं. संख्या

स्वीकृत करने कीतिथि वर्ष/माह

(6)

(5)

(4)

(3)

( 2)

(1)

04323

2000/05

इंडोसल्फान ईसी

1. 9246582

शक्तिएग्रो केमीकल्स ( इंडिया ) 1. त्यागी मार्किट चौक, तारी खाना कोर्ट, मुरादाबाद (यूपी) 244001

09356

2000/05

ब्यूटाक्लोर ई सी

2. 9246683

शक्तिएग्रो केमीकल्स ( इंडिया ) , 1. त्यागी मार्किट चौक, तारी खाना कोर्ट, मुरादाबाद (यूपी) 244 001

00303

2000/05

3. 9246784

सामान्य प्रयोजन हेतु प्लाईवुड

अशोका कोल्ड स्टोरेज, बिलासपुर बाई पास रोड, जगादरी

03384

2000/04

4. 9246885

बिटुमन- पहले लगाया जाने वाला

एम.के. पैट्रोल प्रॉडक्टस, (प्रा) लि. , गांव सोफ्ता , हरफरी तहसील पलवल, फरीदाबाद

01328

परतचढ़ी सजावटी प्लाईवुड

2000/04

5. 9246986

चन्द्र सागर टिम्बर प्रॉडक्टस , महाँमति बारा गाँव, करनाल

12931

2000/05

एट्राज़िन डब्ल्यूपी

6. 9247079

क्रॉप केमीयकल्स ( इंडिया ) , सी" 63 सेय 65 इंड. एरिया , कोटकपूरा -151 204

11063

2000/04

मैटोक्सरॉन डब्ल्यूपी

जय श्री एग्रो इंड. लि. , जी.टी. करनाल रोड़, गाँव नत्थूपुर, सोनीपत ( हरियाणा) 131 029

13333

2000/05

8. 9247281

कीटनाशक-मैट्रीबिजिन डब्ल्यूपी

जय श्री एग्रो इंड. लि. , जी.टी. करनाल रोड़, गाँव नत्थूपुर,

सोनीपत ( हरियाणा ) 131 029 3409 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3, 2003/वैशाख 13, 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(6)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(1) ( 2)

08219

2000/05

9. 9247382

जिंक सल्फेट हैप्टरहाईड्रेट

कृर्षिग्रेड

भारत फर्टिलाइजर्स मैन्यू. कं. , बी-9 फोकल प्वाइंट • कोटकपूरा 151 204.

12269

2000/05

10. 9247483

53ग्रेड साधारण पोर्टलैण्ड

सीमेंट

खैबर इंडस्ट्रीज ( प्रा ) लि. , गाँव तुलपोव खुंमोह, श्रीनगर 190 001.

00303

2000/05

11. 9247584

सामान्य प्रयोजन हेतु

प्लाईवुड

गोयल वुड प्रॉडक्टस, गाँव नन्दोली सहारनपुर रोड, यमुना नगर

02. 91

01489

पोर्टलैंड पोजोलाना सीमेंट

2000/05

12. 9247685

शंकर इंडस्ट्रीज, गाँव पात्ती पी ओ तरोड, तह : साम्बा, 22वाँ किमी पत्थर जम्मू पठानकोट रोड जम्मू

13333

2000/04

13. 9247786

कीटनाशक-मैट्रीबिज़िन

डब्ल्यूपी

कृर्षिरसायन एक्सपोर्टस (प्रा) लि. , प्लॉट नं. - 168 और 170 इंड. एरिया, बद्दी सोलन-

08112

2000/05

14. 9247887

43 ग्रेड साधारण पोर्टलैंड

सीमेंट

नॉर्दन सीमेंट एण्ड कंस्ट्रक्शन (प्रा) लि. , गाँव आलमवाला तहसील बाघा पुराना मोगा

00778

2000/05

15. 9247988

जल कल प्रयोजन के लिए ताम्बा मिश्रधातु के गेट ग्लोब औरचेकवाल्व

केके मेटल वर्क्स, 18, संताखपुरा , गली नं. 2, पीछे-विद्युत शिकायत ऑफिस होशियारपुर रोड जालंधर- 144004

11997

फेनवेलरेट ई सी

2000/05

16. 9248081

क्रोप केमीकल्स ( इंडिया ) सी-63 से 65 इंड. एरिया, कोटकपूरा 151204

06444

गंधक का भुरकन चूर्ण

2000/05

17. 9248182

इराकेम लि. , सी-5 यूपीएस आईडीसी इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, गजरौला ज्योतिबाफूले

00455

2000/05

18. 9248283

पोर्टलैंड धातुमल

सीमेंट

माकेन सीमेंट इंड. , 9-10 इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट एक्सटें. , कठुआ184 102

01659

ब्लॉक बोर्ड

2000/05

19. 9248384

ईशान इंडस्ट्रीज, गाँव जौरियान रदौर रोड, यमुना नगर- 3410

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

(3)

(4)

(1) ( 2)

20. 9248485

2000/05

ईशान इंडस्ट्रीज , गाँव जौरियान रदौर रोड, यमुना नगर-

2000/05

21. 9248586

हारून सीमेंट फैक्टरी ( प्रा) लि. , लार, गन्डेरबल, श्रीनगर-

2000/05

22. 9248687

चन्द्र सागर टिम्बर प्रॉडक्टस , महाँमति बाडागाँव , करनाल

2000/05

23. 9248788

हरियाणा इंडस्ट्रीज, खजूरी रोड, यमुना नगर

2000/05

24. 9248889

हरियाणा इंडस्ट्रीज, खजूरी रोड, यमुना नगर

2000/05

25. 9248990

कृषि रसायन एक्सपोर्टस (प्रा) लि. , प्लॉट नं. 168, 170 इंड. एरिया, बद्दीसोलन-

2000/05

26. 9249083

ऑबेराय वुड इंडस्ट्रीज एम-15 इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, यमुना नगर

2000/05

2.7 . 9249184

सिंघल पेस्टीसाइडस, 9/122मोतीबाग जमुनापार, आगरा-282006

2000/05

28. 9249285

त्रिशूल इंटरप्राइजिज प्रा.लि.

2000/05

29. 9249386

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) )

(6) (5)

00303

सामान्यप्रयोजन हेतु प्लाईवुड

12269

53 ग्रेड साधारण ओर्टलैंड सीमेंट

00303

89 सामान्यप्रयोजन हेतु प्लाईवुड

00303

सामान्य प्रयोजन हेतु प्लाईवुड

90 ब्लॉक बोर्ड

01659

10319

ईशियॉन ईसी

90 ब्लॉक बोर्ड

01659

09356

80 ब्यूटाक्लोर ई सी

पोर्टलैंड पोजालाना सीमेंट 01489

08112

43ग्रेड साधारण पोर्टलैंड सीमेंट

न्यूसेन्चुरी सीमेंट कं. ,

रूरल फोकल प्वाइंट गाँव पथराला,

भटिण्डा

2000/05

30. 9249487

क्वालिटी डेयरी ( इंडिया ) लि. , गाँव सोफता तहसील पलवल, फरीदाबाद-

2000/05

31. 9249588

आर एम प्लाईवुड इंड. प्रा.लि. , गाँव तितोली जिन्द रोड, रोहतक-

32. 9249689

2000/05 आर एम प्लाईवुड इंड. प्रा.लि. , गाँव तितोली जिन्दरोड, रोहतक-

2000/05

33. 9249790

हिमालयन प्लास्टिक प्रा.लि. 9 इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, चम्बाघाट, सोलन-

2000/05

34. 9249891

अनिल प्लाई बोर्ड, गाँव बारनई अखनूर रोड, जम्मूतवी

13334

मलाई युक्त दूध पाउडर

00303

सामान्यप्रयोजन हेतु प्लाईवुड

01659

ब्लॉक बोर्ड

12786

89 सिंचाई उपस्कर-लेटरल्स

02202

91 लकड़ी के सपाट दरवाजे के शटर (ठोस कोर प्रकार ) भाग 1 प्लाईवुड सतहयुक्त पल्ले 3411 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मई3, 2003/वैशाख 13, 1925

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6 ) 2000/05

35. 9249992

10748

वेल्डित टयूब और पाइपों के लिए तप्त वेल्लित पत्तियां

विश्वनाथ आयरन एण्ड स्टील रि-रोलिंग मिल्स, जी.टी. रोड ( सरहिन्द साइड) मण्डीगोविन्दगढ़ 147 301

36. 9250068

2000/05

02721

जस्तीकृत इस्पात की श्रृंखला नुमा बाड़ पर लगाने की जाली

स्वास्तिक पोलीस्टील प्रा. लि. , गाँव जटोली पी.ओ. डाचघाट, सोलन-

2000/05

37. 9250169

सामान्य प्रयोजन हेतु प्लाईवुड 00303

हरियाणा प्लाईवुड इंड. (प्रा. ) लि. , 33किमी स्टोन जी टी करनाल रोड, पीओ कुण्डली, सोनीपत-

38. 9250270

2000/05

12016

साइपरमेथ्रिन ई सी

मोतीलाल पेस्टीसाइडस ( इंडिया ) प्रा. लि. , मसानी, मथुरा-

2000/05

3906

39. 9250371

95 एक्यूरेट इंजीनियरिंग वर्क्स, स्ट्रीट, नं. 3 डूगरीरोड समीप केकल ब्रिज, लुधियाना-141 002

फसल संरक्षण उपस्कर हस्तचालित पीठ पर लादा जाने वाला संपीडन फुहारा, पिस्टन टाइप

40. 9250472

2000/05

सामान्य प्रयोजन हेतु प्लाईवुड 00303

वेद प्रकाश मित्तल एण्ड संस डब्ल्यू-१ इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, यमुनानगर-

41. 9250573

2000/05

07181

86 सचदेवा मेटल वर्क्स, सी-33 , फोकट प्वाइंट एक्सटेंशन जालंधर-144 001

जल गैस, सीवरके लिए क्षैतिज ढले लोहे के दोहरे फ्लेंज युक्त पाइप

2000/06

00280

78 42. 9250674

सामान्यइंजीनियरिंग प्रयोजनके लिए मृदु इस्पात की तार.

पीसीवायर, वीपीओ सूरजपुर मोहल्ली तहसील इंदौर, काँगरा-

43. 9250775

2000/05

10908

द्रवित पैट्रोलियम गैसके लिए रबड़ की नम्य नालियाँ

जसमीत ऑटो ( प्रा) लि. , 2216, मॉडर्न इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, बहादुरगढ़

2000/06

44. 9250876

05312

घरेलूकार्यों के लिए स्विंग चैक रिफलक्स वाल्व

भगवान दास कुलवंत राय जैन भगल पुरा समीप- दोआबा चौक जालंधर-144 004

84 2000/06

45. 9550977

00780

जल कल प्रयोजन के लिए स्लूस वाल्व

भगवान दास कुलवंत राय जैन भगल पुरा समीप-दोआबा चौक जालंधर-144 004

46. 9251070

2000/06

02098

एस्बेस्टॉस सीमेंट के भवन निर्माण हेतु बोर्ड

यूपी एस्बेस्टॉस लि. , मोहन लाल गंज, लखनऊ- 227305

67 2000/06

47. 9251171

02312

नोदक टाइप ए सी संवातन पंखे

प्रदीप इलैक्ट्रिकल इंडस्ट्रीज, 3ए/ 152आजाद नगर कानपुर- 3412

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

(1) (2)

(3)

(4) 2000/05

48. 9251272

क्यू. एस टी लि. , अग्रवाल बिल्डिंग दिमाल , कानपुर 208 004

2000/05

49. 9251373

चारू इलैक्ट्रिकल्स प्रा.लि. , प्लॉट नं. 12 , सेक्टर 4, फरीदाबाद-

2000/06

50. 9251474

एम के वाल्व प्रॉडक्टस ई-48 फोकल प्वाइंट एक्सटेंशन, जालंधर-144 004

2000/05

51. 9251575

के. सी. प्लाईवूड इंडस्ट्रीज, अखनूर रोड मुठी, जम्मूतवी 52. 9251676

2000/05 के. सी. प्लाईवूड इंडस्ट्रीज , अखनूर रोड मुठी, जम्मू तवी 53. 9251777

2000/06

रैडसन टाइल्स एण्ड पेवर्स ( प्रा) लि० , 375 , इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, फेज -2 , पंचकूला

2000/06

54. 9251878

टर्मिनल इम्पैक्स, गाँव वरियाना कपूरथला रोड़, पीओ बस्तीक्यूजन, जालंधर-144002

2000/06

55. 9251979

एम०के ०पैट्रो प्रॉडक्टस लि० . , गाँव सोफ्ता हरफली तहसील पलवल, फरीदाबाद 2000/05

56. 9252072

हरियाणा पेस्टीसाइड्स, गाँव मंधौर चान्दीगढ़, अम्बाला हाइवे, अम्बाला शहर 134007 57. 9252173

2000/06

पूजा प्रेसट्रेस सीमेंट इंड.प्रा.लि. , गाँव रोसू पीओ फराह, मथुरा

58. 9252274

2000/06

विजयदीप मेटल वर्क्स , 181, स्वर्ण पार्क सलीमपुर रोड, गाँव गडईपुर, जालंधर 2000/06

59. 9252375

वी एम टिम्बर इंड. , 7, एस आई सी ओ पी इंड , एस्टेट कठुआ ( जम्मू- कश्मीर ) 60. 9252476

2000/05

अनुप्रॉडक्टस लि. , तिगांव रोड़, ओल्ड फरीदाबाद

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] (5)

(6)

02713

शिरोपरि पावर लाइनों के लिए इस्पात के गोल खंभे

02082

93 बिजली के पानी गर्म करने के भण्डारण किस्म के स्थिरहीटर

00780

जल कल प्रयोजन के लिए स्लूस वाल्व

89 सामान्य प्रयोजन हेतु प्लाईवुड 00303

ब्लॉक बोर्ड

01659

دم

01237

80 सीमेन्ट कंक्रीट की फर्श बिछाने वाली टाइलें

07181

86 जल गैस , सीवर के लिए क्षैतिज ढले लोहे के दोहरे फ्लेंज युक्तपाइप

01834

84 कंक्रीट के जोड़ो पर गर्म लगाया जाने वाला सीलिंग यौगिक

08074

मोनोक्रोटोफॉस एस एल

00458

पूर्व ढलित कंक्रीट पाइप (प्रबलन सहित और रहित)

00778

जल कल प्रयोजन के लिए ताम्बा मिश्रधातु के गेट ग्लोब औरचेकवाल्व

08112

89 43ग्रेड साधारण पोर्टलैंड सीमेंट

92 2, 4-डिथाइल ईस्टर डब्ल्यूपी 10244 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 3, 2003/वैशाख 13, 1925

(1) ( 2)

(3)

(4) 61. 9252577

2000/06 स्टर्लिंग ईरिगेशन लिमिटेड, बी-6 साइट ए, सिकन्दरा इंड. एरिया, यू० पी ० एस ० आई ०डी०सी० , सिकन्दरा , आगरा । 62. 9252678

2000/06

3413 (5)

(6)

12232

96 सिंचाई उपस्कर- घूर्णी फुहारक

14151

शिवा पाइप्स,

डिफेंस रोड समीप पंगोली चौक,

पठानकोट-145001

63. 9252779

2000/06

सिंचाई तंत्र के छिड़काव युग्मक के लिए पालीथाइलीन पाइप

89 सामान्य प्रयोजन हेतु प्लाईवुड 00303

अम्बिका प्लाईवुड इंडस्ट्रीज

(प्रा) , गाँव इन्द्रपुर, तहसील

बिलासपुर, रामपुर

64. 9252880

2008/07 रवि सीमेंट एण्ड केमीकल्स ( प्रा) लि. , इंड. एक्सटें एरिया हॅटलीमोरे, कठुआ

65. 9252981

2000/07

00455

89 पोर्ट लैंड धातुमल सीमेंट

00779

94 पानीके मीटर ( घरेलूकिस्म)

एनबीईसन इंजीनियरिंग वकर्स,

38, सुदर्शन नगर, 100 फुटा रोड,

अमृतलर

66. 9253074

2000/06 गिरधर पाइप्स, प्लाट नं . 184, सेक्टर 29 हुडा इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, पानीपत 137108 67. 9253175

2000/05 बी: एस. ग्राम उद्योग समिति ( रजि. ) , मालेरकोटली रोड, समीप चौधरी पेट्रोल पम्प, खन्ना, लुधियाना-141401 68. 9253276

2000/07 हनुमान इलैक्ट्रिकल्स, एम -3 रश्मी नगर, कमला नगर, आंगरा

69. 9253377

2000/7

मार्कफीड एग्रो केमीकल्स, 7 और 8 बी इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट , फेस 1 , मोहाली 70. 9253478

2000/7

मार्कफीड एग्रो केमीकल्स, 7 और 8 बी इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, सास नगर, मोहाली 71. 9253579

2000/7

09537

83 विद्युत संस्थापनके लिए मंट्यूट भाग 3 कंड्यूट विद्युत रोधक सामग्री के लिए दृढ़ सांद्र कंड्यूट

00362

91 पार्लियामरहिज

02312

मौदक ाइप ए सी संवातन पंखे

10243

92 2, 4-डी ईथाइल ईस्टर ई सी

-12916

एसीफेट एस पी

11995

आईसाप्रोटयूरॉन डब्ल्यूपी

केमीकल्स एण्ड एलाइड प्रॉडक्टस ,

गवर्न० इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट,

देवरिया-274001

72. 9253680

2000/6

कोहिलको इंडस्ट्रीज , 76 इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, के वी राइज मिल के पीछे, जालंधर-144004 115491/03-3

09890

सामान्य प्रयोजन के वाल्व THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

3414

(4)

(3)

(1) ( 2)

2000/7

73. 9253781

नाय्यर इलैक्ट्रोड्स ( प्रा. ) लि. , लेन नं. 6 फेस 2 सिडको काम्पलेक्स इंड, एस्टेट, बारी ब्राह्मण , जम्मू

2000/7

74. 9253882

फंगीसाइड्स इंडिया लि. , लेन नं. 4, फेस 2, सिडको इंड. काम्पलैक्स बारी ब्राह्मण , जम्मू

2000/7

75. 9253983

इंडोइंजीनियरिंग वर्क्स, 46 हाथरस रोड़, नारैच, आगरा-282006

2000/7

76. 9254076

स्वराज ऑटोमोटिक्स लि. , कक्राला रोड़, नाभा-147201

2000/7

77. 9254177

वीजीएसइंडस्ट्रीज, 2362एमआईई, बहादुरगढ़ -124507

2000/7

78. 9254278

दुग्गल इंटरप्राइजिज , आउटसाइड ओहरी गेट, बठाला

2000/7

79. 9254379

श्रीकेमीकल्स, जी-118, पनकी इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, साइट-3 , कानपुर

2000/7

80. 9254480

धनुका पेस्टीसाइड्स लि. , गाँव अट्टा सोहना मण्डकोला रोड़, तहसील नूह, गुड़गाँव

2000/07

81. 9254581

डेकोरा इंडस्ट्रीज, 5- इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, चम्बाभट सोलन

2000/07

82. 9254682

हाफेड पेस्टीसाइड्स, जी.टी. रोड़, तारौड़ी, करनाल-132 116

2000/07

83. 9254783

क्रॉप केयर पेस्टीसाइड्स (इं) प्रा. लि. , गांव सैयदोमाजरा हैबतपुर रोड़ , डेराबस्सी

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

(6)

(5)

00814

हस्त्यधातु आर्क वेल्डिंग के लिए आवृत्त कार्बन और कार्बन मैंगनीज इस्पात इलैक्ट्रोड

01507

कॉपर आक्सीक्लोराइड का जल परिक्षेपणीय चूर्ण सांद्र

10001

सामान्य प्रयोजनों (20 किलीवाट तक) के लिये एक समान गति वाले संपीडन प्रज्जवलित ( डीजल) इंजनों हेतु कार्यकारिता अपेक्षाएं

09020

पावर थ्रेशर

08978

पानी गर्म करने के इंस्टेंट हीटर

79 अपशिष्ट और संवातन के 01729 लिए रेत के सांचों में ढले लोहे के सिपगेट और सॉकेट पाइप, फिटिंग और सहायकांग

08249

जिंक सल्फेट हैप्टाईड्रेट, कृषिग्रेड

14250

इटोफेनप्रोक्स, ई सी

00278

बाढ लगाने के लिये जस्तीकृत इस्पात के कांटेदार तार

13403

कीटनाशक एनिलोफॉस

04323

इंडोसल्फान ईसी 3415 [ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 3 , 2003/वैशाख 13, 1925

(6)

(1) (2)

(4)

(5)

(3)

12016

2000/07

87 84. 9254884

साइपरमेथ्रीन ई सी

क्रॉप केयर पेस्टीसाइडस (इं) प्रा. लि. , गांव सैयदोमाजरा हैबतपुर रोड़, डेराबस्सी

11997

87 85. 9254985

2000/07

फेनवेलरेट ईसी

क्रॉप केयर मेस्टीसाइडस (इं) प्रा. लि. , गांव सैयदोमाजरा हैबतपुर रोड़, डेराबस्सी

02567

86. 9255078

78 2000/07

मैलाथियॉन ईसी

क्रॉप केयर पेस्टीसाइडस (ई) प्रा. लि. , गांव सैयदोमाजरा हैबतपुर रोड़, डेराबस्सी

87. 0255179

2000/07

10319

ईथियॉन ईसी

क्रॉप केयर पेस्टीसाइडस (ई ) प्रा. लि. , गांव सैयदोमाजरा हैबतपुर रोड़, डेराबस्सी

2000/07

08944

88. 9255280

क्लोराइपरिफॉस ई सी

क्रॉप केयर पेस्टीसाइडस ( इ. ) प्रा. लि. , गांव सैयदोमाजरा हैबतपुर रोड़, डेराबस्सी

01328

96 89. 9255381

2000/07

परतचढ़ी सजावटी

प्लाईवुड

पंजाब प्लाईवुड इंडस्ट्रीज, गांव कामीमाजरा खजूरी रोड, यमुना नगर

00278

90. 9255482

2000/07

बाड़ लगाने के लिये

जस्तीकृत इस्पात के

कांटेदार तार

स्वास्तिक पॉलीस्टील प्रा.लि. गांव जटोली पी ओ दाकघाट, सोलन

2000/08

84 91. 9255583

00778

जल कल प्रयोजन के लिए ताम्बामिश्रधातु के गेट ग्लोब और चेक वाल्व

प्रेस्टीजवाल्वस, 41 एग्लोब कॉलोनी इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, जालंधर

2000/07

80 92. 9255684

05780'

बिजली के मूल भूत निरापद उपकरण और परिपथ

इलैक्ट्रिकल इक्यूपमेंट कारपोरशन , 251 , राजीव नगर बस स्टेण्ड रोड, गुडगाँव

77 93. 9255785

2000/08

01534

सेससन केबल्स इंडस्ट्रीज, गाँव बेगमपुर खटोला बेहराम पुररोड, गुडगाँव

फलोरोसेंट लैम्पों के लिए बैलास्ट भाग 1 स्विच चालित परिपथो हेतु

02052

94. 9255886

79 2000/07

पशुओं के लिएमिश्रित

आहार

किरण इंडस्ट्रीज, बी-12 , फोकल प्लाइंट, खन्ना-144 401

2000/08

02046

95 95. 9255987

सजावटी थर्मोसैटिंग संश्लिष्ट

रेजिनबद्ध परतदार चादरें

मेरिनो पेनेल प्रॉडक्टस लि. , 44 किमी दिल्ली रोहतक रोड़, गांवरोहड, झज्जर -124 501 [PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003/VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

3416

(6)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

01061

2000/08

96. 92556080

फिनोलिक टाइप रोगाणु- नाशक तरल पदार्थ-काला औरसफेद

इलोशा पेन , 40 एचएसआईडीसी इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, कुण्डली, सोनीपत

09537

2000/08

97. 9256181

विद्युत संस्थापन के लिये कंडयूट

भारत इंडस्ट्रीज ( रजि. ) जी.टी. रोड़, दीनानगर, गुरदासपुर

14186

2000/07

9256282

98.

कीटनाशक डिफ्लू- बेंजूरॉन डब्ल्यूपी

नॉर्दन मिनरल्स लि. , दौलताबाद रोड़, गुडगांव-122 001

01534

2000/08

9256383

9 .

फ्लोरोसेंट लैम्पों के लिए बैलास्ट भाग 1 स्विच चालितट परिपथों हेतु

ग्लोवेल इंडिया ई-1 संजय कॉलोनी, सेक्टर 23, फरीदाबाद -121 005

00458

2000/07

100. 9256484

पूर्व ढलित कंक्रीट पाइप (प्रबलन सहित और रहित )

पंजाब पाइप इंडस्ट्रीज , मनसा पटियाला हाइवे वीपीओ खैला कलां मनसा

01328

परतचड़ी सजावटी प्लाईवुड

2000/07

101. 9256585

गोल्डन प्लाईवुड इंडस्टीज प्रा. लि. , मुल्लान रोड़ वीपीओ हमब्रान, लुधियाना

01659

ब्लॉक बोर्ड

2000/08

102. 9256686

वेद प्रकाश मित्तल एण्ड संस, डब्ल्यू-१ , इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, मोदी मिल के सामने, यमुना नगर

04246

2000/08

9256787

103.

द्रवित पेट्रोलियम गैसों के साथ प्रयुक्त घरेलू गैस चूल्हे

लांसर होम एप्पलायंसेस प्रा.लि. , प्लॉट नं, 10 , प्रथम तल शिव कॉलोनी , रचना सिनेमा के पीछे , सेक्टर -22, फरीदाबाद -121 005

02062

सामान्य संरचना इस्पात

2000/08

104. 9256888

सुदर्शन स्टील लि. , लेन नं. 2, फेस 2, सिडको इंडस्ट्रियल कॉम्पलैक्स बारीब्राह्मण जम्मु ( जे. एंड के. )

13334

2000/08

मलाई युक्त दूध पाउडर भाग 1 मानक ग्रेड

भारत डेयरी उद्योग , भारतपुर आगरा रोड़, फिरोजपुर झिकरा, गुडगांव -122104

12916

एसीफेट एस पी

2000/07

シン /082

फंगीसाइडस इंडिया लि. , लेन नं. 4, फेस 2, सिडकों इंडस्ट्रियल कॉम्पलेक्स, बारीब्राह्मण जम्मु 3417 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 3, 2003/वैशाख 13 , 1925

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1) ( 2)

(6)

12016

87 2000/07

107. 9257183

साइपरमेथ्रीन ईसी

फंगीसाइडस इंडिया लि. , लेन नं. 4, फेस 2, सिडकों इंडस्ट्रियल कॉम्पलेक्स, बारीब्राह्मण जम्मु

79 2000/08

108. 9257284

पशुओं के मिश्रित आहार 02052

जी.आर. सोल्वेंट एण्ड एलाइड इंडस्ट्रीज लि. गांव अदलपुरताज , पीओ कैलसा , सम्मुख: कैलसा रेलवे स्टेशन, जे.पी. नगर

01659

90 2000/08

109. 9257385

ब्लॉक बोर्ड

यूनीकंप्लाईवुडस (प्रा. ) लि. , गांव हलालपुर जटोला रोड, सोनीपत

00458

88 2000/08

110. 9257486

पूर्व ढलित कंक्रीट पाइप

( प्रबलन सहित और रहित )

शंकर स्पन पाइप्स, नाभा भवानी रोड, वीपीओ माझी, संगरूर

04250

2000/07

111. 9257587

बिजली के घरेलूखाद्य

(द्रवीयरक और मिक्चर

ग्राइंडर )

आल्विनइंटरप्राइजिज ( इंडिया ) 116 , इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, लुधियाना

08074

90 2000/08

मोनोक्रोटोफॉस एस एल

112. 9257688

सनरेएग्रो केमीकल्स, गांव नूरपुर सेठन, फिरोजपुर-152001

00303

2000/08

113. 9257789

सामान्यप्रयोजन हेतु

प्लाईवुड

पूजाडेकेरेटिव प्लाईवुड, गांव कामी माजरा पीओ शादीपुर खजूरी रोड़, यमुना नगर

ब्लॉकबोर्ड

01659

2000/08

9257890

114.

अशोका कोल्ड स्टोरेज, बिलासपुर बाईपास, जगाधर

93 2000/08

04990

115. 9257991

कंक्रीट शटरिंग कार्य

के लिए प्लाईवुड

स्टार प्लाईबोर्डस लि. , गांव गंधोली सम्मुखः तेजली स्पोर्टस काम्पलैक्स, यमुना नगर

01011

2000/09

116. 9258084

बिस्कुट

सच फूडस, गांव नेजियाखेडा समीप- डेरा सचा सौदाधाम सिरसा

08112

117. 9258185

2000/09

43ग्रेड साधारण पोर्टलैंड

सीमेंट

इल्लाही सीमेंट इंडस्ट्रीज, इंड. एक्टेंशन एरिया अंचिडोरा , अनन्तनाग ( जे और के)

12269

2000/09

118. 9258286

53 ग्रेड साधारण पोर्टलैंड

सीमेंट

इल्लाही सीमेंट इंडस्ट्रीज, इंड. एक्टेंशन एरिया अंचिडोरा , अनन्तनाग ( जे और के ) [PART II-SEC . 3(ii)) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2003 /VAISAKНА 13 , 1925

3418

(6)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(1) (2)

01417

2000/09

119. 9258387

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं,

आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता

एवं मुहरांकन

तलवार जेवलर्स, एससीएफ 9-10, सेक्टर 22 डी, चण्डीगढ़

08112

2000/09

120. 9258488

43 ग्रेड साधारण पोर्टलैंड

सीमेंट

रडी सीमेंट इंडस्ट्रीज प्रा.लि. , प्लॉट नं. 123 गांव चुरूवा पीओ दोस्पुर (साहगो) बचरावन रायबरेली

07193

2000/09

9258589

121.

कांच रेशा आधारित

बिटुमैन नमदा

शालीमार पेट्रो प्रॉडक्टस प्रा.लि. , नन्दगांव रोड, गांव बारहाना कोसीकलां, मथुरा.

01489

पोर्टलैंड पोजोलाना सीमेंट

2000/09

122. 9258690

बम्बा सीमेंट (प्रा. ) लि. , गांव प्रीतिपुरा मुरालिया तहसील बिश्नाह , जम्मु

02414

2000/09

123. 9258791

साइकिल तथा रिक्शा- हवा भरे टायर की विशिष्टि

हिन्दुस्तान टायर कं. , कांगनवल जी.टी. रोड, लुधियाना-141 120

02415

साइकिल रबड़ ट्यूब

2000/09

124. 9258892

हिन्दुस्तान टायर कं. , कांगनवल जी टी रोड, लुधियाना-141 120

01879

2000/09

125. 9258993

धातुवर्ध्य ढलवांलोहे

केपाइप फिटिंग

जगदम्बे इंडस्ट्रीज , गांव गोदईपुर, पीओ रणधावा मसन्धा, जालंधर-144 004

01538

2000/09

126. 9259086

पानी गैस और मलजल के लिए ढलवां लोहे के दाब पाइपों की फिटिंग

जुनेजा मेटल वर्क्स, गांव बरियाना पीओ पस्ती गुजान, कपूरथला रोड, जालंधर

01879

2000/09

127. 9259187

धातुवर्ध्य ढलवां लोहे

केपाइप फिटिंग

पंकज मेटल इंडस्ट्रीज ( रजि. ) , 80 दादा, कॉलोनी, जालंधर-144 004

09974

2000/09

123. 9259288

उच्च दाब के सोडियम

वाष्प लैंस

मैना इलैक्टॉनिक्स प्रा.लि., 106 उद्योग विहार, फेस 4, गुड़गांव

01322

2000/09

129. 9259389

जलसर और नमसर बनाने के लिए बिटुमैन

रामा बिटूमेन प्रॉडक्टस, गांव सरूरपुर पाली नागला रोड, फरीदाबाद

01610

2000/10

घरेलूसिलाई मशीन

130. 9259490

सम्पत्ति एप्पलायंसेज प्रा.लि. , 2682अर्बन एस्टेट, डूगरी रोड, लुधियाना [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3419

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2003/वैशाख 13, 1925

(3)

(4) (1) ( 2)

131. 9259591

2000/10

(5)

(6)

13947

93 निम्न वोल्टता स्विचगियर औरनियंत्रण गियर

स्पुटनिकस्विचगियर ( प्रा. ) लि. ,

जी.टी. रोड, गोराया,

जालंधर

132. 9259692

2000/09 कौयरफोम ( इंडिया ) ग्रा.लि. , 14/6 मथुरा रोड, फरीदाबाद -121 003

2000/10

133. 9259793

सागर इंजी. वर्क्स, गली नं. 2, प्रेम नगर, होशियारपुर रोड बाईपास चौक, समीप-लाम्बा पिण्ड चौक, जालंधर

2000/10

134. 9259894

मंगला होप एप्पलायंसेस, फ्रेंड्स एनक्लेव सिंधू बार्डर, कुण्डली सोनीपत-131 028 135. 9259995

2000/10 गोल्डन प्लाईवुड इंड. ( प्रा. ) लि. मुल्लांपुर रोड, वीपीओ हमब्रान , लुधियाना

136. 9260071

2000/10 सम्राट प्लाईवुड लि. , हाबेतपुर रोड, डेराबस्सी, पटियाला

137. 9260172

2000/10 सम्राट प्लाईवुड लि. , हाबेतपुर रोड, डेराबस्सी, पटियाला

138. 9260273

2000/10 मयंक प्रेसट्रेस इंडस्ट्रीज इलाहाबाद बांध रोड, गांव खुटाहा (शिवरामपुर ) चित्रकूट

139. 9260374

2000/10 जी.एस. कास्टिंग्स, 404/2/3/4 गांव सिरसां लाडो रोड, कुरूक्षेत्र 140. 9260475

2000/08

स्टार प्लाईबोर्डस प्रा. लि. , गांव गंधौली , तेजली स्पोर्टस काम्पलेंक्सके सामने, यमुनानगर-135 001

2000/09

141. 9260576

यूनीक प्लाईवुड प्रा. लि. , गांव हलालपुर जटोला रोड, सोनीपत

142. 9260677

2000/10 अजन्ता इंडस्ट्रीज, 184/6 दमदमा रोड, गांव भोंडसी, तहसील सोहना, गुड़गांव

08391

87 कुशनिंग के लिए रबड़ चढ़े नारियल जटा की शीट

00778

जल कल प्रयोजन के लिए ताम्बामिश्रधातु के गेट ग्लोब और चेक वाल्व

04246

92 द्रवित पेट्रोलियम गैसों के साथ प्रयुक्त घरेलूगैस चूल्हे

76 समुद्री उपयोग हेतु प्लाईवुड 00710

04990

93 कंक्रीट शटरिंग कार्य के लिये प्लाईवुड

00710

76 समुद्री उपयोग हेतु प्लाईवुड

00458

88 पूर्व ढलित कंक्रीट पाइप (प्रबलन सहित और रहित)

01729

79 अपशिष्ट और संवातन के लिए रेल के सांचों में ढले लोहे के सिपगेट और सॉकेट पाइप, फिटिंग और सहायकांग

76 समुद्री उपयोग हेतु प्लाईवुड 00710

96 परतचढ़ी सजावटी प्लाईवुड 01328

संश्लिष्टखाद्य रंग

05346

94 [PART II- SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

3420

(6)

(5)

(4)

(2)

(3)

(1)

03062

2000/10

143. 9260778

फसल संरक्षण उपस्कर- रॉकर फुहारा

एक्यूरेट इंजीनियरिंग वर्क्स, स्ट्रीट नं. 3 , दुर्गी रोड, समीप-केनल ब्रिज, लुधियाना

03652

2000/10

144. 9260879

फसल संरक्षण उपस्कर-पाद फुहारा

एक्यूरेट इंजीनियरिंग वर्क्स, स्ट्रीट नं. 3, दुर्गी रोड, समीप-केनल ब्रिज, लुधियाना-141002

11010

2000/06

9260980

145.

जिरम मोनोइडैल संस्पेंशन

फंगीसाइड्स इंडिया लि. , लेन नं. 4 , फेस 2 , सिडको इंड कॉम्पलेक्स, बारी ब्राह्मण जम्मु

08028

क्विनालफॉस ईसी

2000/06

9261073

146.

फंगीसाइड्स इंडिया लि. , लेन नं. 4 , फेस 2, सिडको इंड कॉम्पलेक्स, बारी ब्राह्मण जम्मू

01879

2000/10

9261174

147.

धतुवर्ध्य ढलवां लोहे के पाइप फिटिंग

डबल आई कास्टिंग ( इंडिया ) ई-20 इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , जालंधर

11132

अमोनियावाल्व

2000/10

148. 9261275

थापर इंडस्ट्रीज, डी-189 फोकल प्वाइंट एक्सटेंशन, जालंधर

09020

पावर थ्रेशर

2000/10

149. 9261376

गुरूनानक आयरन इंडस्ट्रीज, एनएच 26 ललितपुर रोड, बबीनाझांसी

01011

2000/10

बिस्कुट

150. 9261477

कोशल फूड्स, प्लाट नं. 4, इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, कठुआ (जे एण्डके)

01489

2000/10

151. 9261578

पोर्टलैंड पोजोलाना सीमेंट

वी एम टिम्बर इंडस्ट्रीज, 7, सिकोप इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, कठुआ (जे एण्ड के)

01239

2000/10'

152. 9261679

भारत स्टील टयूब्स लि. , बीएसटी रोड गनौर 131101 , जिलासोनीपत

मृदु इस्पात की नालियाँ नलिकाकार साम्रगियाँ तथा पिटवां इस्पात की अन्य फिटिंग

00303

2000/10

153. 9261780

सामान्य प्रयोजन हेतु प्लाईवुड

श्रीगोपाल उद्योग, खजूरी रोड, शादीपुर, यमुनानगर

01417

2000/10

9261881

154.

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएँ, आभूषण /शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

सन्त राम मंगत राम ज्वेलर्स, 34भदौर हाऊस, लुधियाना [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2003 /वैशाख 13 , 1925

(1) (2)

(3)

(4) 155. 9261982

2000/10 किटप्लाई इंडस्ट्रीज लि. , शाहबाद रोड, रामपुर उत्तर प्रदेश-244901 156. 9262075

2000/10 हारून सीमेंट फैक्टरी ( प्रा ) लि. , लार, गण्डेरबली श्रीनगर कश्मीर

157. 9262176

2000/10 जेको मेलिएबल्स ( प्रा ) लि. , सी-68 फोकल प्वाइंट एक्सटेंशन, जालंधर 9262277

158.

2000/10 केमीको इंडिया, डी-3, फोकल प्वाईंट, जालंधर शहर

159. 9262378

2000/11

एशियनसीमेंट, 12, इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट एक्सटेंशन, कठुआ (जे एण्डके)

2000/10

160. 9262479

कपिला कृषि उद्योग ( प्रा ) , लि. , तातिषागंड जी.डी. रोड, कानपुर

161. 9262580

2000/10 सत्य दीप उद्योग , मोहम्मदपुर मथुरा रोड़, आगरा -282007 162. 9262681

2000/10 जॉली एक्पोर्ट्स, गाँव एवं पोस्ट रणधावा मसन्दा, जालंधर 144004 163. 9262782

2000/11 मास्टर टूल्स कारपोरेशन, 211 बस्ती नव जालंधर

2000/11

164. 9262883

मास्टर टूल्स कारपोरेशन, 211 बस्ती नव जालंधर 165. 9262984

2000/08 त्रिमूर्ति पेस्टीसाइड्स, गाँव झारमेरी , पीओ लालरू, जिला पटियाला

2000/07

166. 9263077

ट्रिलो एग्रो इंडस्ट्रीज लि. , गाँव झारमेरी, जिला पटियाला 167. 9263178

2000/08

प्रीति प्लाई बोर्ड्स प्रा . लि. , अमदलपुररोड, बुरिया चौक, जगाधरी , जिला जमुनानगर 2000/10

168. 9263279

नॉर्दर्न मिनरल्स लि. , दौरलाबाद रोड, 115491 /03-4

3421 (5)

(6)

03097

80 परत चढ़े कर्ण बोर्ड

91 पोर्टलैंड पोजोलाना सीमेंट 01489

01879

87 धातुवर्ध्य ढलवांलोहे के पाइप फिटिंग

02692

जल सेवाफेरूल

12269

87 53 ग्रेड साधारण पोर्टलैंड सीमेंट

02052

पशुओं के लिए मिश्रित आहार

01729

अपशिष्ट और संवातन के लिए रेत के सांची में ढ़ले लोहे के सिपगेट और सॉकेट पाइप , फिटिंग और सहायकांग

01879

धातुवर्ध्य ढलवां लोहे के पाइप फिटिंग

04003

पाइप रिंच भाग 1 सामान्य प्रयोजन

04003

पाइप रिच

08074

मोनोक्रोटोफॉस एस एल

05277

डिक्लोरवॉस ईसी

80 अग्नि अवमंदक प्लाईवुड 05509

03383

भीगने योग्य गंधक चूर्ण 3422

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003/VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

[PART 11-SEC . 3( ii) ]

(6)

(4)

(5)

(3)

(1) ( 2)

ब्लॉक बोर्ड

01659

169. 9263380

2000/11

श्रीगोपाल उद्योग, खजूरी रोड, शादीपुर, यमुना नगर

08112

2000/11

170. 9263481

43ग्रेड साधारण पोर्टलैंड सीमेंट

राजस्थान सीमेंट इंडस्ट्रीज , इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, सिपको कठुआ, (जे एण्ड के) 184102

08074

2000/09

171. 9263582

मोनोक्रोटोफास एसएल

एमसन्सकेमीकल्स इंडिया, गाँव गढ़ीछाजूसामल्खा, पानीपत

00303

89 2000/11

172. 9263683

सामान्य प्रयोजन हेतु प्लाईवुड

हरियाणा वुड प्रॉडक्टस , गाँव मकराबपुर छछरौली रोड , जगाधरी , जिला जमुना नगर

84 2000/11

173. 9263784

00778

जल कल प्रयोजन के लिए ताम्बा मिश्रधातु के गेट ग्लोब और चेक वाल्व

अमर वाल्व्सप्रॉडक्टस, एस-63 इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, जालंधर144004

88 2000/11

04985

174. 9263885

पेय जल आपूर्ति के लिए गैर-प्लास्टिकृतपीवीसी पाइप

स्पेक्ट्रम मेर्सेन्टाइल प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, गाँव गंगापुर 5 किमी स्टोन , मुरादाबाद रोड, काशीपुर, जिला यूएस नगर

95 2000/11

02347

175. 9263986

घरेलूप्रेशर कूकर

मित्तलस्टील वर्क्स,

मित्तल उद्योग बिल्डिग लाडोवाली

रोड, जालंधर

08978

176. 9264079

2000/11

पानी गर्म करने के इंस्टेंट हीटर

सर्वोत्तम पम्प्स लि. , 316 सेक्टर 24, फरीदाबाद -121005

02082

2000/11

177. 9264180

बिजली के पानी गर्म करने के भण्डारण किस्मके स्थिरहीटर

सर्वोत्तम पम्प्स लि. , 316 सेक्टर 24, फरीदाबाद-121005

97 2000/11

01061

178. 9264281

फिनोलिक टाइप रोगाणुनाशी तरल पदार्थ काला और सफेद

प्रशान्त केमीकल वर्क्स, 381के अफीम कोठी, प्रतापगढ़

12016

179. 9264382

2000/09

साइपरमेथ्रीन ईसी

मॉडर्न इन्सेक्टीसाइड्स लि. , सी-162 एफोकल प्वाइंट, फेस 1 , धनदारी कलाँ लुधियाना

13403

2000/09

180. 9264483

कीटनाशक एनिलोफॉस

मॉडर्न इन्सेक्टीसाइड्स लि. , सी-162एफोकल प्वाइंट, फेस 5 , धनदारी कलाँ लुधियाना

09356

2000/09

181. 9264584

ब्यूटाक्लोर ईसी

मॉडर्न इन्सेक्टीसाइड्स लि. , सी-162 एफोकल प्वाइंट, फेस 5,. धनदारी कलाँ लुधियाना 3423 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3, 2003/वैशाख 13, 1925

(3)

(1 ) ( 2)

(4)

(5)

(6)

2000/09

182. 9264685

08028

क्विनालफॉस ई सी

मॉडर्न. इन्सेक्टीसाइड्सलि. , सी-162 एफोकल प्वाइंट, फेस 5, धनदारी कलाँ, लुधियाना

2000/09

183. 9264786

क्लोरपाइरिफॉस ई सी

08944

मॉडर्न इन्सेक्टीसाइड्स लि. , सौ-162 ए फोकल प्वाइंट, फेस 5, धनदारी कलाँ, लुधियाना

2000/11

184. 9264887

01610

घरेलू सिलाई मशीन

बी. आर. मेकेनिकल कारपोरेशन , 265/2अहाता फकीर चन्द, समराला रोड, लुधियाना

2000/11

185. 9264988

02082

बिजली के पानी गर्म करने के भण्डारण किस्म के स्थिर हीटर

ओएसिस एप्लायंसेस, 170 बाबा हृदय राम इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, मुजेस्सर, फरीदाबाद-121 005

186. 9265081

2000/11

02082

बिजली के पानी गर्म

करने के भण्डारण किस्म

केस्थिर हीटर

खन्ना इंजीनियर्स, पलॅट नं. 1 , बडखन लेन चौक, सामने फूड क्राफ्ट इंस्टीट्यूट, पाली रोड, एनआई टी, फरीदाबाद-121 001

187. 9265182

2000/11

00455

पोर्टलैंड धातुमल सीमेंट

एण्डोट्रा सीमेंट इंडस्ट्रीज, इंडस्ट्रियल एक्सटेंशन एरिया, कठुआ

2000/11

188. 9265283

02052

पशुओंके लिए

मिश्रित आहार

कैटलफीडप्लांट किछा बाईपास रोड, रूद्रपुर, जिला यू. एस. नगर

189. 9265384

2000/11

01610

घरेलूसिलाई मशीन

रोज़ी सीविंग मशीन कम्पनी, प्लॉट नं. 1 , शेरपुर चौक, समीप इम्पेक्ट स्कूटर्स, लुधियाना

190. 9265485

2000/12

03196

ओमिड इंजीनियर्स (प्रा. ) लि. , गाँव एवं पोस्ट देवलिया, तहसील एएमआर, जिला ऊना

अल्पदाब द्रवणीय गैसों के लिए 5 - लिटर से अधिक जलक्षमता वाले वेल्डित अल्प कार्बन इस्पात के सिलिंडर भाग 1 एलपीजी सिलिण्डर

191. 9265586

2000/12

03196

92 कृष्णा सिलिण्डर्स, गाँव नसीर पुर, हिसाररोड

अल्पदाब द्रवणीय गैसों के लिए 5 - लिटर से अधिक जलक्षमता वाले वेल्डित अल्प कार्बन इस्पात के सिलिंडर भाग 1 एलपीजी सिलिण्डर [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

3424

(6)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

10319

ईथियॉन ईसी

2000/11

192. 9265687

मॉडर्न इन्सेक्टीसाइड्स लि. , सी-162एफेस वीसीफोकल प्वाटइंट, धनदारी कलाँ, लुधियाना

04323

इंडोसल्फान ईसी

2000/08

193. 9265788

त्रिमूर्तिपेस्टीसाइड्स, गाँव झारमारी , पीओ लालरू,

जिला पटियाला

12916

एसीफेट एस पी

2000/08

194. 9265889

ट्रिलो एग्रो इंडस्ट्रीज लि. , पी ओ काकरू 40 किमी सटोन, चण्डीगढ़ दिल्ली हाइवे, गाँव झारमारी , जिला पटियाला

03196

2000/12

195. 9265990

मरकरी सिलिण्डर्स ( प्रा. ) लि. , यूपीएसआईडीसीं इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया साइड बी, आगरा रोड़, मथुरा

अल्पदाब द्रवणीय गैसों के लिए 5 लिटर से अधिक जलक्षमता वाले वेल्डित अल्प कार्बन इस्पात के सिलिण्डर

भाग 1 एलपीजी

01237

2000/11

196. 9266083

सीमेन्ट कंक्रीट की फर्श बिछाने वाली टाइलें

गैंदामल चिरंजीलाल, वीपी ओ चाँदीमन्दिर, जिला पंचकूला

03196

अल्पदाब द्रवणीय गैसों

2000/12

197. 9266184

एस.के.एन. इंडस्ट्रीज , खसरा नं . 21/18 , 19, 22 , 23 , 28/4दिल्ली जयपुर हाइवे धारूहेड़ा, रेवाड़ी

के लिए 5 - लिटर से अधिक जलक्षमता वाले वेल्डित अल्प कार्बन इस्पात के सिलिण्डर

01786

2000/12

आर. आर.एस. रोलिंग मिल्स

198. 9266285

भाग 1 एलपीजी सिलिण्डर कंक्रीट प्रबलन के लिए उच्च सामर्थ्य विन्धापित इस्पात के सरिए और तार

(प्रा. ) लि., कुरूँवाला बस स्टैण्ड बरवाला रोड, डेराबस्सी, जिला पटियाला-140 507

04984

2000/12

199. 9266386

पानी की आपूर्ति के लिए उच्च घनत्ववाले पोलिएथिलीन पाइप

बसन्त पाइप इंडस्ट्रीज, शेड नं. 18, इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, चाबाघाट, सोलन -173 213

08944

क्लोरपाइरिफॉस ईसी

2000/12

266487

एच.पी. एग्रो इंडस्ट्रीज, कारपो. लि. , प्लॉट नं . 8 , सेक्टर 5, परवानू-173 220.

03196

एसएन एप्पलायंसेस,

गाँव गुलाबगढ़

बरवाला रोड,

डेरा बस्सी

अल्पदाब द्रवणीय गैसों के लिए 5 - लिटर से अधिक जलक्षमता वाले वेल्डित अल्प कार्बन इस्पात के सिलिण्डर भाग 1 एलपीजी सिलिण्डर

[सं. सीएमडी-1 / 13 : 11 ]

पी. दक्षिणामूर्ति, अपर महानिदेशक [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3425 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3, 2003/वैशाख 13 , 1925

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi , the 17th April, 2003

S.O. 1335. In pursuance of sub - regulation (5 ) of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification ) Regulations 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars ofwhich are given in the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

Title of the Standard

Year Name & Addres of the Party

SL No.

Licence No.

IS No. Part Sec.

Operative Date (Year/ Month)

7 1. 9246582 2000/05

Endosulfan EC

04323

80 Shakti Agro Chemicals (India) I, Tyagi Market Chowk Tarikhana Court Road Moradabad (UP)-244001

2. 9246683 2000/05

Butachlor EC

09356

80 Shakti Agrochemicals ( India) 1 , Tyagi Market Chowk Tarikhana Court Road Moradabad (UP)-244001

3. 9246784 2000/05

00303

89-

Plywood for General Purposes

Ashoka Cold Storage Bilaspur Bye Pass Road Jagadhari .

4. 9246885 2000/04

03384

Bitumen Primer for use in water

86 M.K. Petro Products (P) Ltd. Vill . Softa Harfali Teh . Palwal Faridabad.

5. 9246986 2000/04

01328

VeneeredDecorative Plywood

Chandra Sagar Timber Product Mahanmati Bara Gaon Karnal .

6. 9247079 2000/05

Atrazine WP

12931

90 Crop Chemicals(India) C-63 to 65 Indl . Area Kotkapura- 151204

7. 9247180 2000/04

Metoxuron WP

11063

Jai Shree Agro Indst. Ltd. G.T. Karnal Road Vill . Nathupur Sonepat (HR)-131029

2000/05

8. 9247281

Pesticide Metribizin WP

13333

92 Jai Shri Agro Indst. Ltd. G.T. Karnal Road Vill . Nathupur Sonepat (HR)-131029

9. 9247382 2000/05

08249

Zinc Sulphate Heptahydrate , Agri

Bharat Fertilizers Mfg . Co. B-9 Focal Point Kotkapura- 151204

2000/05

10. 9247483

12269

53Grade OPC

89 Khyber Industries (P) Ltd. Vill.Tulpow Khunmoh Srinagar- 190001

2000/05

II . 9247584

00303

Plywood for general purposes

Geol Wood Products Vill. Nandoli Saharanpur Road YamunaNagar .

3426

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] 2

7 12. 9247685 2000/05

01489-02

Portland pozzolana cement

Shanker Industries Vill. Patti P. O. Tarore Teh . Samba , 22nd Km stone Jammu Pathankot Road Jammu .

13. 9247786 2000/04

13333

Pesticide metribizin WP

Krishi Rasayan Exports (P) Ltd. Plot No. 168 and 170 Indl . Area Baddi Solan.

14. 9247887 2000/05

08112

43 grade OPC

Northern Cement & Construction (P) Ltd. Vill . Alamwala Teh . Bagha Purana Moga.

15. 9247988 2000/05

CopperAlloy Gate Globe & Chec 00778

K.K. Metal Works 18 , Santokhpoura, Gali No.2 Backside elect . compliant Office Hoshiarpur Road Jalandhar - 144004

2000/05

16. 9248081

Fenvalerate EC

11997

87 CropChemicals ( India) C-63 to 65 Indl . Area Kotkapura-151204

2000/05

17. 9248182

06444

Sulphur Dusting Powderin

Irachem Ltd. C-5 , UPSIDC Industrial Area Gajraula Jyotiba Phule Nagar.

18. 9248283 2000/05

00455

Portland Slag Cement

Maken Cement Indust . 9-10 Industrial Estate Exn . Kathua- 184102

19. 9248384 2000/05

BlockBoards

01659

.90 Ishan Industries Vill . Jourian Radour Road YamunaNagar.

20. 9248485 2000/05

00303

Plywood for general purposes

Ishan Industries Vill . Jourian Radour Road YamunaNagar.

2000/05

21. 9248586

12269

53 grade OPC

Haroon Cement Factory (P) Ltd. LAR, Ganderbal Srinagar .

2000/05

89 22. 9248687

00303

Plywood for general purposes

Chandra Sagar Timber Product Mahenmati Baragaon Karnal .

23. 9248788 2000/05

00303

Plywood for general purposes

Haryana Industry Khajuri Road Yamuna nagar .

2000/05

01659

90 24. 9248889

Block Boards

Haryana Industry Khajuri Road Yamunanagar.

25. 9248990 2000/05

10319

Ethion EC

Krishi Rasayan Exports (P) Ltd. PlotNo. 168 , 170 Indl . Area Baddi Solan.

2000/05

Block Boards

01659

26. 9249083

90 Oberoi Wood Industries M- 15 Industrial Area Yamunanagar.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 3 , 2003/वैशाख 13 , 1925

3427 1 2

7 27. 9249184 2000/05

Butachlor EC

09356

80 Singhal Pesticides 9/122Motibagh Jamunapar Agra-282006.

28. 9249285 2000/05

Portland Pozzolana Cement

01489 02

91 Trishul Enterprises (P) Ltd. KotBhalwal near Sub Jail Jammu.

29. 9249386 2000/05

43Grade OPC

08112

89 New Century Cement Co. Rural Focal Point Vill . Pathrala, Bhatinda .

30. 9249487 2000/05

Skimmed Milk Powder

13334 01

98 Kwality Dairy ( India) Ltd. Vill. Softa Teh . Palwal Faridabad.

31. 9249588 2000/05

00303

Plywood for general purposes

R.M. Plywood Indst . Pvt . Ltd. Vill. Titolly Jind Road, Rohtak.

32.,9249689 2000/05

BlockBoards

01659

90 R.M. Plywood Indst. Pvt . Ltd. Vill. Titolly Jind Road Rohtak.

33. 9249790 2000/05

12786

Irrigation Equipment Polythylen

Himalayan Plastic Pvt . Ltd. 9 Industrial Estate Chambaghat Solan.

34. 9249891 2000/05

Wooden Flush Door Shutters 02202 01

91 AnilPlyBoards Vill . Barnai Akhnoor Road Jammu Tawi .

35. 9249992 2000/05

10748

HotRolled Steel Strip

Vishwanath Iron and Steel Re-rollingMills G.T. Road (Sirhind side) Mandi Gobindgarh - 147301 .

36. 9250068 2000/05

02721

Galvanized Steel Chain Link Fence Fabric

Swastik Polysteel Pvt . Ltd. Vill . Jatoli P.O. Dachghat Solan .

37. 9250169 2000/05

00303

Plywood for general purposes

Haryana Plywood Indst . ( P) Ltd. 33 km . Stone G.T. Karnal Road PO Kundli - Sonepat .

38. 9250270 2000/05

12016

Cypermethrin EC

Motilal Pesticides (India) Pvt . Ltd. Masani Mathura .

39. 9250371 2000/05

Hand operated Knapsack Sprayer 03906

Accurate Engineering Works Street No. 3 , Dugri Road near Canal Bridge Ludhiana- 141002 .

40. 9250472 2000/05

00303

Plywood for general purposes

Ved Pardkash Mittal & Sons W-9 , Industrial Area Yamunanagar.

41. 9250573 2000/05

07181

Sachdeva Metal Works C-33, FocalPoint Extension Jalandhar - 144001 .

Horizontally cast iron double Flanged pipes for water , Gas and Sewage 3428

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003/VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

7 3

1 2

00280 2000/06

Mild Steel Wire

42.9250674

PeeCee Wire VPO Surajpur Mohtli Teh . Indore Kangra.

10908

91 2000/05

43. 9250775

Flexible rubber tubing

Jasmeet Auto ( P) Ltd. 2216, Modern Industrial Estate Bahadurgarh.

05312 01 2000/06

44. 9250876

Swing check type reflux valves

Bhagwan Dass Kulwant Rai Jain Bhagat Pura near Doaba Chowk Jalandhar- 144004

00780

84 2000/06

45. 9250977

Sluice Valves for water works

Bhagwan Dass Kulwant Rai Jain Bhagat Pura near Doaba Chowk Jalandhar- 144004

02098 U.P. Asbestos Ltd.

46. 9251070 2000/06

Asbestos Cement Building Boards

Mohanlalganj Lucknow - 227305

02312 2000/06

47. 9251171

Propeller type AC ventilating fan

Pardeep Electrical Industries 3A/ 152 Azad Nagar Kanpur-

02713 01 2000/05

48. 9251272

Tubular Steel poles for overhea

QSTLtd. Agarwal Building the Mall Kanpur-208004

02082

93 2000/05

49. 9251373

Stationary Storage Ele . water Heaters

Charu Electricals Pvt . Ltd. Plot No. 12 Sector 4 Faridabad.

00780

Sluice valves for water works

2000/06

50. 9251474

M.K. Valve Products E-48 Focal point Extension Jalandhar- 144004

00303 2000/05

51. 9251575

Plywood for general purposes

K.C. Plywood Industries Akhnoor Road Muthi Jammu Tawi .

01659

BlockBoards

52.9251676 2000/05 K.C. Plywood Industries Akhnoor Road Muthi Jammu Tawi .

01237 2000/06

Cement concrete flooring tiles

53. 9251777

RedsunTiles & Pavers (P) Ltd. 375, Industrial Area Phase II Panchkula.

07181 2000/06

54. 9251878

Horizontal cast iron double flanged pipes for water gas sewage .

Terminal Impex Vill . Variana Kapurthala Road P.O. Basti Quzan Jalandhar- 144002

01834 2000/06

55. 9251979

Hotapplied sealing compound

M.K. Petro Products Ltd. Vill . Softa Harfali Tehsil Palwal Faridabad.

08074 2000/05

Monocrotophos SJ

56. 9252072

Haryana Pesticides Vill . Mandhour Chandigarh Ambala Highway Ambala City - 134007 3429

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2003/वैशाख 13 , 1925

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii)]

00458 57. 9252173 2000/06

Precast concrete pipes

Puja Prestress Cement Indust . Pvt . Ltd. Vill . Rosu Po Farah Mathura-

84 2000/06

58. 9252274

CopperAlloy gate globe & Chec 00778 Vijay Deep Metal Works 181, Swarn Park Salimpur Road Vill . Gadaipur Jalandhar-

2000/06

59. 9252375

43 Grade OPC

08112

89 VM Timber Indust . 7, SICOP Indl . Estate Kathua (J&K)-

92 60. 9252476 2000/05

10244

2, 4-dethyl Ester WP

Anu Products Ltd. Tiganv Road OldFaridabad

2000/06

12232 01

96 61. 9252577

Rotating Spelinkler

Sterling Irrigation Limited B -6 Site A Sikandara Indal Area UPSIDC, Sikandra Agra-

94 2000/06

14151 02 62. 9252678

Irrigation equipment- sprinkler

Shiva Pipes Defence Road near Pangoli Chowk Pathankot - 145001

00303

89 63. 9252779 2000/06

Plywood for general purposes

Ambika Plywood Industries (P ) Ltd. Vill . InderpurTehsil Bilaspur Rampur-

00455 64. 9252880 2000/07

Portland slag cement

Ravi Cement and Chemicals (P) Ltd. Indl . Extn . area Hatlimore kathua-

00779

Watermeters

2000/07

65. 9252981

NBESON Engineering Works 38 , Sudershan Nagar 100 Foot Road Amritsar

09537 03

83 66. 9253074 2000/06

Conduit for electrical installa

GirdharPipes Plot No. 184 Sector 29 HUDA Industrial Estate Panipat- 132108

00362 2000/05

67. 9253175

Parliament Hinges

B.S. Gram Udyog Samiti (Regd. ) Malerkotla Road Near Choudhry Petrol Pump Khanna Ludhiana- 141401

67 2000/07

68. 9253276

02312

Propeller type AC ventilating Fans

Hanuman Electricals M-3 Rashmi Nagar Kamla Nagar Agra.

10243 2000/07

69. 9253377

2,4-D Ethyl Ester EC

Markfed Agro Chemicals 7 and 8 B Industrial Estate Phase I Mohali .

12916 2000/07

70. 9253478

Acephate SP

MarkfedAgro Chemicals 7 and 8 B Industrial Estate Sas Nagar Mohali

115491/03-5 3430

[PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

11995

71. 9253579 2000/07

Isoproturon, WP

Chemicals and Allied Products Govt . Industrial Estate Deoria-274001 .

09890

Kohilco Industries

72. 9253680 2000/06

General purpose Ball Valves

76 Industrial Estate behind KV RiceMills , Jalandhar - 144004 .

00814

Covered Electrodes for Manual

2000/07

73. 9253781

Nayyar Electrodes (P) Ltd. Lane No. 6, Phase II SIDCO Complex Indl . Estate Bari Brahmana , Jammu.

01507

2000/07

74. 9253882

CopperOxychloride Water DP

Fungicides India Ltd.

Lane No. 4, Phase II SIDCO Indl . Complex, Bari Brahmana Jammu.

81 2000/07

10001

Constant speed compression IGNI

75. 9253983

Indo Engineering Works 46Hathras Road, Naraich Agra-282006 .

09020

PowerThreshers

2000/07

76. 9254076

Swaraj Automotivces Ltd. Kakrala Road, Nabha- 147201 .

08978

VGS Industries

2000/07

77. 9254177

Electric Instantaneous water Heaters

2362MIE, Bahadurgarh- 124507

79 2000/07

78. 9254278

Sand Cast Iron Spigot and Socket 01729

Duggal Enterprises outside Ohri Gate Batala.

08249

2000/07

79. 9254379

Zinc Sulphate Heptahydrate , Agri

Shree Chemicals G- 118 Panki Industrial Area Site III, Kanpur .

14250

2000/07

80. 9254480

Etofenprox, EC

Dhanuka Pesticides Ltd. Vill . Atta Sohna Mandkola Road Teh. Nuh , Gurgaon .

00278

Galvanized Steel Barbed Wire .

2000/07

81. 9254581

Decora Industries 5, Industrial Estate Chambabhat Solan .

13403

Pesticide Anilophos

2000/07

82. 9254682

Hafed Pesticides G.T. Road Taraori Karnal-132116.

04323

EndosulfanEC

2000/07

83. 9254783

Crop Care Pesticides (I) Pvt . Ltd. Vill. Saidomajra Haibatpur Road Derabassi .

12016

2000/07

Cypermethrin EC

84. 9254884

Crop Care Pesticides ( 1) Pvt. Ltd. Vill. Saidomajra Haibatpur Road Derabassi .

11997

2000/07

Fenvalerate EC

85. 9254985

CropCare Pesticides (I ) Pvt. Ltd. Vill . Saidpura Haibatpur Road Derabassi .

3431

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 3, 2003/वैशाख 13 , 1925

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

78 2000/07

02567 86. 9255078

Crop Care Pesticides ( 1) Pvt . Ltd. Malathion EC Vill . SaidpuraHaibatpur Road Derabassi.

2000/07

10319 87. 9255179

Ethion EC

Crop Care Pesticides (I) Pvt . Ltd. Vill . Saidpura Haibatpur Road Derabassi .

78 2000/07

08944 88. 925280

Chlorpyrifos EC

CropCare Pesticdes (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vill . Saidopura Haibatpur Road Derabassi .

2000/07

01328

96 89. 9255381

Veneered Decorative Plywood

Punjab Plywood Industries Vill . Kami Majra Khajuri Road YamunaNagar.

00278 90. 9255482 2000/07

Galvanized Steel Barbed Wire

Swastik Polysteel Pvt . Ltd. Vill . Jatoli Po Dacghat Solan.

84 2000/08

91. 9255583

CopperAlloy Gate Globe & Chec 0778

Prestige Valves 41A Globe Colony Industrial Area, Jalandhar.

05780 92. 9255684 2000/07

Intrinsically Safe Elec . Appara .

Electrical Equipment Corporation 251 , Rajiv Nagar Bus Stand Road,Gurgaon.

Ballasts for Fluorescent

01534 01 2000/08

93. 9255785

Samsun Cables Industries Vill .Begampur Khatola Behram pur Road , Gurgaon .

02052

79 2000/07

94. 9255886

Compounded Feed for Cattle

Kiran Industries B- 12Focal Point Khanna- 144401:

95 2000/08

95. 9255987

Decorative Thermosetting Synthe 02046

Merino Panel Products Ltd. 44Km . Delhi Rohtak Road VillRohad, Jhajjar- 124501 .

01061

97 2000/08

96. 9256080

Disinfactant Fluids , Phenolic Type

Elosha Pan 40 HSIDC Industrial Estate, Kundli , Sonepat .

09537 02 97. 9256181 2000/08

Conduitfor Electrical , Installa

Bharat Industries (Regd.) G.T.Road Dinanagar , Durdaspur.

14186

PesticidesDiflubenzuron WP

98. 9256282 2000/07 Northern Minerals Ltd. DaultabadRoad , Gurgaon-122001.

01534 01 2000/08

99. 9256383

Ballasts for Eluorescent

Glowel India E- 1 Sanjay Colony Sector 23 , Faridabad- 121005.

00458

88 2000/07

100. 9256484

Precast Concrete Pipes

Punjab Pipe Industries MansaPatialaHighway VPO Khaila Kalan , Mansa.

01328 2000/07

Veneered Decorative Plywood

101. 9256585

GoldenPlywood Industries Pvt. Ltd. Mullan Road VPO Hambran Ludhiana.

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

3432

01659

Block Boards

2000/08

102. 9256686

Ved Prakash Mittal and Sons W-9 Industrial Area opp.Modi Mills Yamunanagar.

04246

Domestic Gas Stoves

2000/08

103. 9256787

Lancer Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd. PlotNo. 10 , first floor Shiv Colony behind Rachna Cinema Sector 22 Faridabad- 121005 .

02062

2000/08

104. 9256888

Steel for General Structural purposes

Sudarshan Steel Ltd. Lane No. 2 Phase 2 SIDCO Industrial Complex Bari Brahmna Jammu , (J&K).

13334 01

Skimmed milk Powder

105. 6256989 2000/08 Bharat Dairy Udyog Bharatpur Agra Road Firozepur Jhirka Gurgaon - 122104 .

12916

2000/07

Acephate SP

16. 9257082

FungicidesIndia Ltd. Lane No. 4 Phase 11 SIDCO Industrial Complex Bari Brahmna Jammu .

12016

2000/07

Cypermethrin EC

107. 9257183

Fungicides India Ltd. Lane No. 4 Phase II SIDCO Industrial Complex Bari Brahmna Jammu .

02052

2000/08

9257284

Compounded Feed for Cattle

108.

G.R. Solvent & Allied Industries Ltd. Village Adalpurtaj PO Kailsa Opp. Kailsa Railway Station J.P. Nagar.

01659

BlockBoards

2000/08

109. 9257385

Unique Plywood (P) Ltd. Vill . Halalpur Jatola Road Sonepat.

00458

Precast Concrete Pipes

10. 92574862000/08 Shanker Spun Pipes Nabha Bhawani Road VPO Majhi Sangrur.

04250

Domestic Elec . Food Mixer

2000/07 Allwyn Enterprises ( India) 116, Industrial Area Ludhiana.

08074

Monocrotophos SI

Sunray Agro Chemicals VillNoorpur Sethan Ferozepur- 152001 .

00303

Plywood for General purposes

PoojaDecorative Plywood Vill . Kami Majra to Shadipur Khajuri Roaamuna Nagar .

01659

BlockBoards

Ashoka C شاندر Bilaspur bye pass , Jagadhri .

04990 2000/08

Plywood for concrete shuttering

7991د

StarPlyboards Ltd. Vill. Gandholi opp. Tejli Sports Complex, Yamunanagar.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3, 2003/वैशाख 13, 1925

3433 1 2

7 116. 9258085 2000/09

Biscuits

01011

92 Sach Foods Vill.Nejiakhera near Dera Sacha Sauda Dham , Sirsa.

117. 9258185 2000/09

08112

43 gradeOPC

Illahi Cement Industries Indl . Extension Area, Anchidora , Anantnag ( J &K) .

118. 9258286 2000/09

12269

53 grade OPC

Illahi Cement Industries Indl . Extension Area, Anchidora, Anantnag ( J& K)-19210107

119. 9258387 2000/09

01417

Gold andGoldAlloys Jewellery

Talwar Jewellers SCF 9-10 Sector 22-D, Chandigarh .

120. 9258488 2000/09

08112

43 grade OPC

RD Cement Industries Pvt . Ltd. PlotNo. 123 Vill . Churuwa, PO. Dostpur ( Sahgo ) Racharawan Raebareilly .

2000/09

121. 9258589

Glass fibre based Bitumen

07193

94 Shalimar Petro Products Pvt . Lttl. Nandgaon Road, Vill . Barhana Kosi Kalan , Mathura .

122. 9258690 2000/09

Portland Pozzolana Cement

01489 02

91 Bamba Cement (P) Ltd. Vill . Prithipura Muralia, Tehsil , Bishnah , Jammu .

123. 9258791 2000/09

Cycle & Rickshaw Pneumatic Tyre 02414

Hindustan Tyre Co. Kanganwal,G.T. Road Ludhiana- 141120 .

2000/09

124. 9258892

02415

Cycle Rubber Tubes

Hindustan Tyre Co. Kanganwal , G.T. Road Ludhiana - 141120.

125. 9258993 2000/09

01879

Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings

Jagdambe Industries Vill. Godaipur, PO Randhawa Masandha, Jalandhar- 144004.

2000/09

126. 9259086

01538

CastIron Fittings for pressure

Juneja Metal Works Vill . Variana, PO Basti Guzan , Kapurthala Road , Jalandhar .

127. 9259187 2000/09

01879

Malleable cast iron pipe fittings

Pankaj Metal Industries ( Regd. ) 80, Dada Colony, Jalandhar- 144004 .

2000/09

128. 9259288

09974 01

Sodium Vapour Lamp

Myna Electronics Pvt . Ltd. 106 Udyog Vihar Phase IV, Gurgaon.

129. 9259389 2000/09

01322

Bitumen felt for water proofing

Rama Bitumen Products Vill . Saroorpur , Pali Nagla Road, Faridabad.

130. 9259490 2000/10

01610

Household Sewing Machines

Sumpatti Appliances Pvt . Ltd. 2682 Urban Estate, Dugri Road, Ludhiana.

131. 9259591

13947 03 2000/10

Low-Voltage Switchgear

Sputnik Switchesgear (P) Ltd. G.T. Road Goraya, Jalandhar .

[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

3434

08391

2000/09

9259692

132.

Rubberized Cojj . Sheets for cushioning

Coirfoam (India) Pvt . Ltd. 14/6 Mathura Road, Faridabad- 121003

00778

2000/10

Copper alloy gate globe & Chec

9259793

133.

Sagar Engg . Works Gali no. 2, Prem Nagar Hoshiarpur Road bye pass chowk near Lamba Pind Chowk Jalandhar .

04246

Domestic gas stoves

2000/10

9259894

134.

Mangla Home Appliances Friends Enclave , Singhu Border Kundli Sonepat- 131028.

00710

MarinePlywood

2000/10

135. 9259995

GoldenPlywood Indst. (P) Ltd. Mullanpur Road, VPO Humbran Ludhiana.

04990

2000/10

Plywood for concrete shuttering

9260071

136.

Samrat Plywood Ltd. Habetpur Road, Derabassi Patiala.

00710

MarinePlywood

2000/10

9260172

137.

Samrat Plywood Ltd. Habetpur Road , Derabassi , Patiala.

00458

Precast concrete pipes

2000/10

138. 9260273

Mayank Prestress Industries Allahabad Banda Road, Vill . Khutaha, (Shiv Rampur ) Chitrakoot .

01729

Sand cast iron Spigot and socke

2000/10

139. 9260374

G.S. Castings 404/2/3/4 Vill , Sirsawa Ladwa Road , Kurukshetra .

00710

MarinePlywood

2000/08

9260475

140.

StarPlyboards Pvt. Ltd. Vill. Gandholi Opp. Tejli Sports Complex YamunaNagar - 135001 .

01328

Veneered Decorative Plywood

2000/09

141. 9260576

UniquePlywoods Pvt . Ltd. Vill.Halalpur, Jatola Road, Sonepat .

05346

Synthetic food colour

2000/10

142. 9260677

Ajanta Industries 184/6 Damdama Road , Vill . Bhondsi , Teh . Sohna Gurgaon .

03062

CropProtection equip . rocker

2000/10

143. 9260778

Accurate Engineering Works Street No. 3 Durgi Road near CanalBridge, Ludhiana.

03652

Crop protection-Foot Sprayer

2000/10

9260879

144.

Accurate Engineering Works Street No. 3 Dugri Road, near Canal Bridge , Ludhiana - 141002 .

11010

Ziram Colloidal, Suspension

2000/6

145. 9260980

Fungicides India Ltd. , Lane No. 4, Phase 2 , SIDCO Indl . Complex, Bari Brahmna, Jammu.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2003/वैशाख 13 , 1925

3435 1 2

7 146. 9261073 2000/06

08028

Quinalphos EC

87 Fungicides India Ltd. Lane No. 4, Phase 2, SIDCO Indl . Complex, Bari Brahmna, Jammu.

147. 9261174 2000/10

01879

Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fitting

Double Aay Casting ( India) E-20 , Industrial Area, Jalandhar .

148. 9261275 2000/10

Ammonia Valve

11132

85 Thaper Industries, D-189 , Focal Point Extension, Jalandhar.

149. 9261376 2000/10

Power Threshers

09020

79 Gurunanak Iron Industries , NH-26, Lalitpur Road, Babina, Jhansi.

150. 9261477 2000/10

Biscuits

01011

92 Kaushal Foods , PlotNo. 4, Industrial Area, Tahliwal, Una.

151. 9261578 2000/10

Portland Pozzolana Cement

01489 02

91 V. M. Timber Industries, 7, SICOP Industrial Estate, Kathua(J&K).

152. 9261679 2000/10

01239 01

Mild Steel Tubes , Tubulars

90 Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. , BST Road, Ganaur- 131101 , Distt. Sonepat.

153. 9261780 2000/10

00303

Plywood for General Purposes

ShreeGopal Udyog , Khajuri Road, Shadipur , Yamunanagar.

154. 9261881 2000/10

01417

Gold and Gold Alloys , Jewellery/Artefacts

Sant Ram Mangat Ram Jewellers , 34, Bhadaur House, Ludhiana .

155. 9261982 2000/10

Veneered Practical Board

03097

80 Kitply Industries Ltd. , Shahbad Road, Rampur(UP)-244901

156. 9262075 2000/10

01489 02

Portland Pozzolana Cement

Haroon Cement Factory (P) Ltd. Lar, Ganderbal Srinagar , Kashmir.

157. 9262176 2000/10

01879

Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fitting

JECO Malleables Pvt . Ltd. C-68 , Focal Point Extension, Jalandhar.

158. 9262277 2000/10

Ferrulesfor Water Services

02692

89 Chemico India, D-3, Focal Point , Jalandhar City.

159. 9262378 2000/11

53 Grade OPC

12269

87 Asian Cement, 12, Industrial Estate Extn . , Kathua (J&K) .

160. 9262479 2000/10

02052

Compounded Feed for Cattle

Kapila Krishi Udyog (P) Ltd. , Tatiaganj , G.T. Road , Kanpur.

161. 9262580 2000/10

Sand Cast Iron Spigot and Socke 01729

Satya Deep Udhyog , Mohammadpur Mathura Road, Agra-282007 .

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

3436

01879

Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings

162. 9262682 2000/10 JollyExports , Vill. & P.O. Randhawa Masanda, Jalandhar- 144004.

04003 01

PipeWrenches

2000/11

163. 9262782

MasterTools Corporation, 211 , Basti Nav Jallandhar .

04003 02

PipeWrenches

2000/11

9262883

164.

Master Tools Corporation , 211 , Basti Nav ,. Jallandhar .

08074

Monocrotophos SI

2000/08

165. 9262984

Trimurty Pesticides , Vill . Jharmari , P.O. Lalru , Distt. Patiala.

05277

Dichlorvos EC

2000/07

166. 9263077

TriloAgro Industries Ltd. , Vill . Jharmeri, Distt. Patiala .

05509

FireRetardant Plywod

2000/08

9263178

167.

Preeti Plyboards Pvt. Ltd. Amadalpur Road Buria Chowk, Jagadhri , Distt . Yamunanagar .

03383

Wettable Sulphur Powder

2000/10

9263279

168.

Northern Minerals Ltd. , Daultabad Road, Gurgaon-122001.

01659

BlockBoard

2000/11

9263380

169.

Shree Gopal Udyog , Khajuri Road , Shadipur, Yamunanagar.

08112

43 Grade, OPC

2000/11

170. 9263481

Rajasthan Cement Industries , Industrial Area SICOP Kathua , J&K- 184102 .

08074

Monocrotophos SI

2000/09

171. 9263582

Amsons Chemicals India, Vill. Garhi Chhaju Samalkha, Panipat.

00303

Plywood for General Purposes

2000/11

9263683

172.

Haryana Wood Products, Vill . Mukarabpur Chhachhrauli Road, Jagadhri , Distt. Yamunanagar.

00778

CopperAlloy Gate Globe & Chec

2000/11

9263784

173.

Amar Valves Products , S-63 , Industrial Area , Jallandhar - 144004.

04985

Unplasticized PVC Pipes

2000/11

174. 9263885

Spectrum Mercantile Pvt . Ltd. Vill . Gangapur 5 km Stone , Moradabad Road , Kashipur , Distt. U.S. Nagar.

02347

Domestic Pressure Cookers

2000/11

175. 9263986

Mittal Steel Works , MittalUdyog Building, Ladowali Road, Jallandhar .

08978 2000/11

176. 9264079

Electric Instantaneous Water Heaters

Sarvottam Pumps Ltd. , 316, Sector 24 , Faridabad- 121005 .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

3437

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2003/वैशाख 13 , 1925

7 177. 9264180 2000/11

02082

Stationary Storage Elec . Water Heaters

Sarvottam Pumps Ltd. , 316, Sector 24, Faridabad- 121005 .

178. 9264281 2000/11

01061

Disinfactant Fluids , Phenolic Type

Prashant Chemical Works , 381 , K. Afim Kothi, Pratapgarh .

2000/09

179. 9264382

12016

CypermethrinEC

Modern Insecticides Ltd. C- 162, A Focal Point Phase- 1 , Dhandari Kalan , Ludhiana.

2000/09

180. 9264483

13403

Pesticide Anilophos

Modern Insecticides Ltd. C- 162, A Focal Point Phase-V, Dhandari Kalan , Ludhiana.

181. 9264584 2000/09

09356

Butachlor EC

Modern Insecticides Ltd. C- 162 , A FocalPoint Phase-V, Dhandari Kalan , Ludhiana.

2000/09

87 182. 9264685

08028

Quhnialphos EC

Modern Insecticides Ltd. C- 162A , Focal Point, Phase-V , Dhandari Kalan , Ludhiana.

183. 9264786

78 2000/09

08944

Chlorpyrifos EC

Modern Insecticides Ltd. C-162A, Focal Point , Phase -V, Dhandari Kalan , Ludhiana.

2000

01610 184. 9264887 2000/11

Household Sewing Machines

B. R. Mechanical Corporation , 265/2, Ahata Faquir Chand , Samrala Road, Ludhiana.

93 185. 9264988 2000/11

02082

Stationary Storage Ele. Water Heaters

OasisAppliances , 170, BabaHirdey Ram Industrial Area, Mujessar, Faridabad- 121005 .

02082 2000/11

186. 9265081

Stationary Storage Elec . Water Heaters

Khanna Engineers , Plot No. 1 , Badkhal Lake Chowk , Opp. FoodCraft Institute, Pali Road, NIT, Faridabad- 121001 .

00455 187. 9265182 2000/11

Portland Slag Cement

Andotra Cement Industries , Industrial Extension Area , Kathua.

02052 188. 9265283 2000/11

Compounded Feed for Cattle

Cattle Feed Plant , Kichha Bye Pas Road, Rudrapur , Distt. U.S. Nagar.

115491/03-6 3438

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003/VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

[PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

01610

2000 9265384

189.

2000/11

Household Sewing Machines

Rozy Sewing Machine Company, Plot No. 1 , Sherpur Chowk near ImpactScooters, Ludhiana.

03196 01 2000/12

190. 9265485

Welded Low Carbon Steel Cylinders

Omid Engineering (P) Ltd. V&PO Deolio , Tehsil AMB Distt. Una .

03196 01 2000/12

191. 9265586

Welded Low Carbon Steel Cylinders

Krishna Cylinders , Vill . Nasirpur, Hissar Road , AmbalaCity.

10319

2000/11

Ethion EC

192. 9265687

Modern Insecticides Ltd. C- 162A, Phase -VC , Focal Point, Dhandari Kalan , Ludhiana .

04323

80 193. 9265788 2000/08

EndosulfanEC

Trimurti Pesticides , Vill . Jharmari , P.O. Lalru , Distt. Patiala .

12916

2000/08

194. 9265889

Acephate SP

TriloAgro Industries Ltd. , PO Kakru 40 Km . Stone Chd Delhi Highway Vill . Jharmari Distt: Patiala.

03196 01 2000/12

195. 9265990

Welded Low Carron Steel Cylinders

Mercury Cylinders (P) Ltd. , UPSIDC Indstrial Area Side B Agra Road Mathura .

01237

2000/11

196. 9266083

Cement Concrete Flooring Tiles

GaindaMal Chiranji Lal VPO Chandimandir Distt.: Panchkula .

03196 01 197. 9266184 2000/12

Welded Low Carbon Steel , Cylinders

S.K.N. Industries , Khasra No. 21/18 , 19,22,23,28/4 Delhi-JaipurHighway Dharuhera, Rewari.

01786

198. 9266285 2000/12

Deformed Steel , Bars and Wires for Concrete Reinforcement

R.R.S. Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. , Kurunwala Bus Stand Barwala Road Dera Bassi , Distt.: Patiala- 140507

04984

2000/12

199. 9266386

Polyeth Pipes for Potable Water

Basant Pipe Industries Shed No. 1B Industrial Estate Chambaghat Solan - 173213

08944

2000/12

200. 9266487

Chlorpyrifos EC

H.P. Agro Industries Corp. Ltd. , PlotNo. 8 Sector 5, Parwanoo- 173220

03196 01 2000/12

201. 9266588

Welded Low Carbon Steel Cylinders

Essen Appliances Vill .Gulabhgarh Barwala Road , Derabassi .

[No. CMD - 1 / 13 : 11 ]

P. DAKSHINAMURTY , Addl. Director General [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3, 2003/वैशाख 13 , 1925

3439

नई दिल्ली, 25 अप्रैल, 2003

का.आ. 1336.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 1988 के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

लाइसेंस धारी का नाम व पता भारतीय मानक

भाग अनु. वर्ष क्रम लाइसेंस सं. संख्या

काशीर्षक

भामा संख्या

स्वीकृत करने कीतिथि वर्ष/माह

(1 ) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

1. 6363773

2002-11-27

01417

99 मैसर्स अभरण जेवलर्स, डी. न. 10-3-4 कारपोरेशन बैंक रोड, उड्डुपि-576101

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

2. 6363874

200-11-27

14543

पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर (पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्ट

मैसर्स गंगे प्यूरिफाइड वॉटर, प्लॉट नं. 4, श्री वेंकटाचलापति नगर थुवरिमन कोचडई, मदुरई-625: 016

3. 6363975

2000-11-18

04985

2000

पेय जल आपूर्ति के लिए गैर प्लास्टि-कृत पीवीसी पाइप (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

मैसर्स सुधाकर ईरिगेशन सिस्टम्स प्रा. लि. , बालाराम थाण्डा समीप इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, सूर्यापेट नलगौंडां जिला 508214

4. 6364068

2000-11-20

08112

43 ग्रेड साधारण पोर्टलैंड सीमेंट (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

मैसर्स श्री वेंकटा साई इंडस्ट्रीज, रेडलाकुन्ता गांव कोडाड मंडल, नलगौंडा जिला ( आ. प्र. )

5. 6364169

2002-11-02

14543

98 मैसर्स चेन्नई ऐजन्सिस , 3/108 सेम्बीलिवराम शोलावरम पोस्ट, चेन्नई 600067

पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर ( पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि

6. 6364270

2002-11-13

01.86

07620

मैसर्स 'कॉन्फिडेंड डेन्टल इक्यूप्मेंटस लि. , नं. 7, पीटी चान्नपा इंड. एस्टेट, कामाक्षीपलायम मगडी रोड, बंगलौर 560079

चिकित्सकीय विद्युत उपस्कर नैदानिक भाग। सामान्य और सुरक्षा अपेक्षाएं (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

7. 6364371

200-12-03

14543

पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर (पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि

मैसर्स श्री बालाजी एग्रो प्रॉडक्टस , 79 के, ज्योति नगर एक्सटेंशन, भारत नगर पडियनाल्लूर चेन्नई 602052

8. 6364472

200-11-27

01417

99 मैसर्स केरलाज्वेलर्स, 34पोंडी बाजार, टी. नगर, चेन्नई 600017

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

3440

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

2002-12-02

9. 6364573

मैसर्स तेजकमल ट्रेड लिंक्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, नं. 3, बॉमर कॉम्पलेक्स बॉमर इंडस्ट्रियलएस्टेट, नागसान्द्रा पोस्ट, बंगलौर 560073

2002-12-03

10. 6364674

मैसर्स माडर्न प्लास्टिक कारपोरेशन, प्लॉट नं. 10, आईडीए, फेस 1 , चेरलापल्ली आर आर जिला (आ. प्र. ) हैदराबाद 500031 2002-12-03

11. 6264775

मैसर्स रॉयल एक्वा फार्म, एस. नं. 144/4 और 146/1 बी पोंमर रोड, तिरूपोरूर यूनियन माम्बक्कम, काँचीपुरम जिला 2002-12-02

12. 6264876

मैसर्स श्री तिरूमलागिरि पुलवराइजर्स (प्रा) लि. , सर्वे नं. 102/1 के. अग्राहरम जग्गियाहपेट कृष्णा लि. (आ. प्र.)

2002-12-03

13. 6364977

मैसर्स श्री रामा पुलवराइजर्स, चिल्लापल्ली गाँव , नेरूडूचेरला मंडल, नलगौंडा जिला ( आ. प्र. ) 2002-12-03

14. 6365070

मैसर्स गंगा मिनरल वॉटर प्रॉडक्टस , 41/1, गंगा निवास पुथुर गाँव, मप्पेऊसेलाईयूर , चेन्नई 600073

2002-12-04

15. 6365171

मैसर्स सोपानम जेवलर्स, कलामबलम पी ओ, त्रिवेन्द्रम

2002-12-04

16. 6365272

मैसर्स जैन ट्रेडिंग कारपोरेशन (बिग ज़िप ) 413 त्रवनकेरे मेन रोड, धर्मराम कॉलेज पोस्ट, बंगलौर 560029

2002-12-03

17. 6365373

मैसर्स श्री पार्श्वनाथ इंडस्ट्रीज, नं. 54, 2रा मेन रामाचन्द्रा, बंगलौर 560021

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

(6)

(5)

14543

पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर ( पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि

12269

53 ग्रेड साधारण पोर्टलैंड सीमेंट

98 पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर ( पैकेजबन्द 14543 प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि

08112

43 ग्रेड साधारण पोर्टलैंड सीमेंट (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

08112

43ग्रेड साधारण पोर्टलैंड सीमेंट ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

14543

पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर ( पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि

01417

14543

पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर ( पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि

06616 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3441

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2003/वैशाख 13, 1925

(1) (2)

(3)

(4) 18. 6365474

2002-12-11 मैसर्स, बरानी इंडस्ट्रीज, 38 और 39 रामाकृष्णापुरम, गणपति कोयम्बत्तूर 641006 19. 365575

2002-12-02 मैसर्स बरानी इंडस्ट्रीज, 38 और 39 रामाकृष्णापुरम, गणपतिकोयम्बत्तूर 641 006 20. 6365676

2002-12-05 मैसर्स महारानी ज्वेलर्स, ए. जे. टॉवर्स माथनम, वारकला 695 141 21. 6365777

2002-12-02 मैसर्स आरवीएस हाईजनिक वॉटर कं. , 3/1119-2सेट्टीगुंटा रोड, नेल्लोर524 002 22. 6365878

2002-12-03 मैसर्स अटल बॉटलिंग कम्पनी, 6-17-1625 गुबाबाडी रोड डुबा, निजामाबाद 503 001 23. 6365979

2002-12-05 मैसर्स अरिहन्त बिजनेस सिस्टम, नं. 65/2, आर-16, 17, 18 केसीजी इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, मागडी मेन रोड, कामाक्षीपलया, बंगलौर 560 079 24. 6366072

2002-11-25 मैसर्स डासमी पॉलिमर्स , एसएफ नं. 33/2 कल्लूकथु थोट्टम, पीडमपल्ली (पी ओ ) पलाडम (टी के ) , कोयम्बत्तूर 641 016 2002-12-05

25. 6366173

मैसर्स अकरम एक्वाप्यूरी , एस नं. 179/1 चल्लारेडिपालेम गाँव , वेतापालेम मण्डल, प्रकासम जिला 523 187 26. 6366274

2002-12-18 मैसर्स एक्वा मारिया एग्रो इंटरप्राइज, ब्लूमफील्ड एस. नं. 104/5, मुट्टकांडू कोवलम 603 112 27. 6366375

2002-12-18 मैसर्स निग्रा मिनरल वॉटर, नं. 135, मडिचुर मेन रोड, लक्ष्मी नगर, तम्बारम, चेन्नई 600048

(5)

(6)

(7)

08472

स्वच्छ ठंडे पानी के लिए पम्प पुनर्योजी

12225

97 जेट अपकेन्द्री पम्प सम्मिलित

01417

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्ट (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

14543

पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर ( पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि

14543

पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर ( पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा) विशिष्टि

09537 03 83 विद्युत संस्थापन के लिए कंड्यूट भाग 3 कंड्यूट विद्युत रोधक सामग्री के लिए दृढ़ सांद्र कंडयूट

12701

96 पानीके भण्डार हेतु प्लास्टिक की टंकियाँ

14543

पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर ( पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि

14543

पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर ( पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि

14543

पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर ( पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि 3442

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003/VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] (1) ( 2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) 28. 6366476

2002-11-12

01741

लेटेक्स फोम रबड़ उत्पाद

मैसर्स बोन पॉलिमर्स ( प्रा ) लि. , 485/5 14वाँ क्रॉस 4था फेस पीनया इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, बंगलौर 560 058

29. 6366577

04985

2000 2002-12-04

पेयजल आपूर्ति के लिए गैर- प्लास्टिकृत पीवीसी पाइप (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

मैसर्स अपूर्वा पाइप्स प्रा लि. , प्लाट नं. 43 केआईएडीबी इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , 1 स्टेज मुन्दर्गी गाँव, बेल्लारी 583 102

30. 6366678

05346

94 2002-12-16

संश्लिष्ट खाद्य रंग- निमित्तियाँ औरमिश्रण.

मैसर्स प्रीमियर एरोमोटिक्स, नं. 68, शिगेहल्ली मेल रोड, यशवंतपुर होबली नाथ, बंगलौर

2002-12-23

31. 6366779

14543

पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर ( पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा) विशिष्टि

मैसर्स क्वालिटी इंडस्ट्रीज, शेड नं. बी-17, सिडको इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, मरईमलाई नगर 603 209

32. 6366880

2002-12-24

01489 01

पोर्टलैंड पोजोलाना सीमेंट भाग 1 फ्लाईएश आधारित (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

मैसर्स एसीएल सीमेंट्स ( प्रा ) लि. , सर्वे नं . 243/59 से 66 और 89 के. एस. रोड़, थन्डलपौडि तालुक, त्रिवेल्लूर 601 201

33. 6366981

02202 01

99 2002-12-20 मैसर्स आर्क- प्लाई- एन- बोर्डस, कुन्जाथूर पी ओ मन्जेस्वर, केसरगड़ 671 323

लकड़ी के सपाट दरवाजे के शटर (ठोस को प्रकार) भाग 1 प्लाईवुड सतहयुक्त पल्ले

34. 6367074

02148

81 2002-12-20 मैसर्स एम आईएल कंट्रोल्स लिमिटेड, मेलाडोर पी. ए. माला त्रिस्सूरजिला 680 741

बिजली के उपकरणों के लिए ज्वालासह आवरण (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

35. 6367175

2000

04985

2002-12-20 मैसर्स आर. एस. ए. पॉलिमर्स (प्रा) लि. , एडावूर पी आर कॉवप्पडी, एर्नाकुलम683 544

पेयजल आपूर्ति के लिए गैर- प्लास्टिकृत पीवीसी पाइप (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

36. 6367276

01786

2002-12-17

कंक्रीट प्रबल्न के लिए उच्च सामर्थ्य विन्धापित इस्पात के सरिए और तार

मैसर्स तिरूपति तद्योग लि. , इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, कोथूर गाँव, मेहबूबनगर जिला 509 325

2002-12-26

37. 6367377

14543

पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर ( पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि

मैसर्स स्टर्लिंग एक्वाप्रॉडक्टस, 63, मदुरई नायकन स्ट्रीट मदुरावोयल, चेन्नई 602102 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2003/वैशाख 13, 1925

(1) (2)

(3)

(4) 38. 6367478

2002-12-26 मैसर्स मॉडर्न मिनरल्स मीनाक्षी सुब्रामण्यन गार्डन, मॉडर्न सिटी नार्थ अन्ना नगर, पत्ताबीराम चेन्नई 602 072 39. 6367579

2002-12-26 मैसर्स प्रिन्स जेवलरी 20/53सीक्वीन्स रोड़, वटाकारा , कांझीकोडे 673 001 40. 6367680 2002-12-16 मैसर्स इको. एक्वा वॉटर्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, 29, II फेस जिगानी इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, अनेकल तालुक, बंगलौर 562 106

41. 6367781

2002-12-16 मैसर्स शार्प टूल्स मोटर डिवीजन 111 अन्नूर रोड, अरासूर पोस्ट, कोयम्बत्तूर 604407 42.6367882

2002-12-30 मैसर्स सन इंडस्ट्रीज, 1/1 कुमारन स्ट्रीट, चेन्नई 604407 43. 6367983 2002-12-26 मैसर्स सुरभि एक्वा इंटरनेशनल, प्लॉट नं. एल-9 और 10 इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, बी. एच. रोड, तुमकुर 572 103 44. 6368076

2002-12-05 मैसर्स एल. बजरंग प्रसाद एण्ड कं. , 22-5-118/119 कलिकामान रोड़, गुलजार हाउस, हैदराबाद 500 002 45. 6368177

2002-12-30 मैसर्स महाकाली इंटरनेशनल, एस. नं. 548, 978 चेन्नई- पेरियापलायम रोड़, कनियापेयर गाँव, उथुकोट्टई तालुक, तिरूवल्लूर जिला 601 102

3443 (5)

(6)

(7)

14543

98 पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर ( पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि

01417

99 स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

14543

98 पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर ( पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि

00996

79 एक फेजी लघु ए सी. और सार्विक बिजली की मोटर (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

14543

98 पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर ( पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि

14543

98 पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर ( पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि

01417

14543

98 पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर ( पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि

[सं. सी एम डी-1/13 : 11 ]

पी. दक्षिणामूर्ति , अपर महानिदेशक [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

3444

New Delhi , 25th April, 2003

S. O. 1336. In pursuance of sub - regulation (5) of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Year

Part Sec .

IS No.

Title ofthe Standard

Name& Address of the Party

Sl . Licence No. No.

Operative (Date/Year/ Month)

01417

2002/11/27

1. 6363773

M/s. Abharan Jewellers D.No. 10-3-4 Corporation Bank Road Udupi - 576101

Gold andGold Alloys , Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and marking- Specification (Third Revision)

14543

2002/11/27

2. 6363874

Specification for Packaged Drinking water (other than Packaged Natural , Mineral Water)

M/ s . Gangai Purified Water Plot No. 4, Sri Venkatachalapathy Nagar Thuvarjman Kochadai Madurai - 625016

2000

04985

2002/11/18

3. 6363975

Unplasticized PVC Pipes for Potable Water Supplies Specification (Third Revision )

M/ s . Sudhakar Irrigation Systems Pvt . Ltd. Balaram Thanda near Industrial Estate Suryapet Nalgonda District- 505214

08112

2002/11/20

4. 6364068

Ordinary Portland Cement Specification for 43 Grade (FirstRevision)

M/s. SRI Venkata Sai Industries Redlakunta Village Kodad Mandai , Nalgonda , District (A.P. )

14543

2002/12/02

5. 6364169

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water ( other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

M/s . Chennai Agencies 3/108 , Sembilivaram Sholavaram Post Chennai - 600067

07620

2002/11/13

6. 6364272

Specification for Diagnostic MedicalX- Ray Equipment- Part 1 -General and Safety Requirements (First Revision)

M/s. Confident Dental Equipments Ltd. No. 7 , Pete Channapa Ind. Estate Kamakshipalya Magadi Road, Bangalore- 560079

14543

2002/12/03

7. 6364371

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water ( other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

M/ s . Sri Balaji Agro Products 79K, Jothi Nagar Extension Bharat Nagar Padianallur Chennai -602052 3445 [ भाग II- खण्ड ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3, 2003/वैशाख13, 1925

7 3

01417

2002/11/27

8. 6364472

M/ s . Kerala Jewellers 34, Pondy Bazaar T. Nagar Chennai -600017

Gold andGoldAlloys ,

Jewellery/Artefacts-

Fineness and Marking

Specification (Third

Revision)

14543

9. 6364573 2002/12/02

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water (other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

M/s . Tejkamal Trade Links Private Limited No. 3, Belmar Complex Belmar Industrial Estate Nagasanidra Post Bangalore -560073

12269

87 2002/12/03

10. 6364674

Specification for 53 Grade Ordinary Portland Cement

M/s . Modern Plastic Corporation Plot No. 10, IDA Phase 1 , Cherlapally R.R. District (AP) Hyderabad-500031

14543

6364775 2002/12/03

11.

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water ( other than Packaged Natural , Mineral Water)

M/s . Royal Aqua Farm S. No. 144/4 & 146/ 1B Ponmar Road Tiruporur Union Mambakkam Kancheepturam District

08112

2002/12/02

12. 6364876

Specification for 43 Grade Ordinary Portland Cement (First Revision)

M/ s . Sri Tirumalagiri Pulvarizers (P) Ltd. , Survey No : 102/1 Κ . Agraharam Jaggaiahpet Krishna District (A.P.)

08112

89 6364977 2002/12/03

13.

Specification for 43 Grade Ordinary Portland Cement (First Revision )

M/s. Sri Rama Pulverisers Chillapally Village Nerudücherla Mandal Nalgonda District (A.P. )

14543

2002/12/03

14. 6365070

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water )

M/s . Ganga Mineral Water Product 41/1 , Ganga Nivas Puthur Village Mappedu Selaiyur, Chennai - 600073

01417

2002/12/04

15. 6365171

M/s . Sopanam Jewellers Kailambalam P.O. Trivandrum

Gold andGold Alloys , Jewellery/Artefacts -Fineness and Marking - Specitication (Third Revision)

14543

16. 6365272 2002/12/04

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

M/ s . Jain Trading Corporation (Big Zip) 413 , Tavarakere Main Road Dhrmaram College Post Bangalore- 560029

115461/03-7 [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003/VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

3446

06616

17. 6365373 2002/12/03

Ballasts for high pressure

Mercury Vapour Lamps

(FirstRevision)

M/ s . SRI Parshwanath Industries No. 54 , II Main Ramachandra Bangalore - 560021

08472

2002/12/11

18. 6365474

Pumps Regenerative or Clear , Cold Water Specification (First Revision )

M/s . Barani Industries 38 & 39 Ramakrishnapuram Ganapathy Coimbatore- 641006

12225

2002/12/02

19. 6365575

Centrifugal Jet Pump-

Specification

(FirstRevision )

M/ s . Barani Industries 38 &39 Ramakrishnapuram Ganapathy Coimbatore- 641006

01417

6365676 2002/12/05

20.

M/s . Maharani Jewellers A. J. Towers Mathanam Varkala - 695141

Gold and Gold Alloys , Jewellery/Artefacts -Fir and Marking - Specification (Third Revision )

14543

2002/12/02

6365777

21.

M/s . RVS Hygenic Water Co. 3/ 1119-2 Settygunta Road, Nellore- 524002

Specification for Packaged . Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

14543

2002/12/03

6365878

22.

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

M /s . Attal Bottling Company 6-17-1625 Gubabadi Road, Dubba, Nizamabad- 503001

09537 03

2002/12/05

23. 6365979

Conduits for Electrical Installations Part 3 , Rigid PlainConduits of Insulating Materials

M/s. Arihant Business System No. 65/2 , R- 16 , 17 , 18 KCG Industrial Estate Magadi Main Road Kamakashipalya Bangalore- 560079

12701

2002/11/25

24. 6366072

Specification for Rotational Moulded Polyethylene Water Storage Tanks (First Revision )

M/ s . Dasami Polymers SF . No. 33/2 , Kallukathu Thottam Peedampalli (P.O. ) Palladam ( TK) Coimbatore- 641016

14543

2002/12/05

25. 6366173

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water ( Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water )

M/s . Akram Aqua Pure S. No. 179/1 , Challareddypalem Village Vetapalem Mandal Prakasam Distict- 523 187

14543

2002/12/18

26. 6366274

M / s . Aqua Maria Agro Enterprise Bloom Field S. No. 104/5 Muttukadu Kovalam - 603112

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3, 2003/वैशाख 13 , 1925

3447 1 2

27. 6366375 2002/12/18

14543

98 M/s . Nigra Mineral Water No. 135 , Mudichur Main Road Lakshmi Nagar Tambaram Chennai - 600048

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

28. 6366476 2002/11/12

01741

Specification for Latex Foam Rubber Products

M/ s . Bonn Polymers (P) Ltd. 485/5, 14th Cross 4th Phase , Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore-560058

29. 6366577 2002/12/04

2000

04985

Unplasticized PVC Pipes for Potable water supplies- Specification (Third Revision)

M/ s . Apoorva Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 43 , Kiadb Industrial Area | Stage Mundargi Village Bellary-583102

30. 6366678 2002/12/16

05346

94 M/s . Premier Aromatics No. 68 , Shigehalli Main Road Yeshwanthpur Hobli , Bangalore North

Synthetic Food Colour-- Preparations and Mixutures Specification ( Second Revision)

31. 6366779 2002/12/23

14543

98 M/s. Quality Industries Shed No. B- 17 SIDCO Industrial Estate , Maraimalai Nagar- 603 209

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

32. 6366880 2002/12/24

01489 01

Specification for Portland Pozzolana Cement Part 1 Flyash Based (Third Revision)

M/ s . ACL Cements ( P) Ltd., Survey No. 243/59 to 66 and 89 K. S. Road , Thandalchery Village Gummidipoondi Taluk Trivellore- 601 201

33. 6366981 2002/12/20

02202 01

99 M/s . Arch - Ply-N - Boards Kunjathur P.O. Manjeswar Kasargod- 671 323

Specification for Wooden Flush Door Shutters (Sold Coretype) Part 1 : Plywood FacePanels (Sixth Revision)

34. 6367074 2002/12/20

01248

Flameproof Enclosures for Electrical Apparatus (Second Revision)

M/ s . Mil Controls Limited Meladoor P.A. Mala Thrissur District- 680741

35.6367175 2002/12/20

04985

2000

Unplasticized PVC Pipes for Portable Water Supplies Specification (Third Revision )

M/ s. R. S. A. Polymers (P) Ltd. , Edavoor P.O. Koovappady Ernakulam- 683 544

36. 6367276 2002/12/17

01786

85 M /s . Tirupati Udyog Ltd. Industrial Area Kothur Village Mahaboobnagar District- 509325

Specification for High Strength Deformed Steel Bars and Wires For concrete Reinforcement (Third Revision) [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

3448

14543

2002/12/26

37. 6367377

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

M/s . Sterling Aqua Products 63 , Madurai Naicken Street Maduravoyal Chennai- 602 102

14543

2002/12/26

38. 6367478

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

M/s . Modern Minerals Meenakshi Subramanian Garden Modern City North Anna Nagar Pattabiram Chennai- 602 072

01417

2002/12/26

6367579

39.

M/s. Prince Jewellery 20/53 C Queens Road Vatakara Kazhikode- 673.002

Gold andGold Alloys , Jewellery /Artefacts-Fineness and Marking Specification (Third Revision)

14543

2002/12/16

6367680

40.

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water

M/s . Eco Aqua Waters Private Limited 29, 11 Phase Jiganj Industrial Area Anekal Taluk Bangalore- 562 106

00996

2002/12/16

6367781

41.

Single Phase Small AC and Universal Electric Motors(Second Revision )

M/ s . Sharp Tools- Motor Division Ill , Annur Road, Arasur Post, Coimbatore-641407

14543

2002/12/30

6367882

42.

M/ s . Sun Industries 1/1, Kumaran Street Cheyyar-004407

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

14543

2002/12/26

43.6367983

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

M/s . Surabhi Aqua International Plot No, L-9 & 10 Industrial Estate B. H. Road, Tumkur-572103

01417

99 2002/12/05

68076

Gold and Gold Alloys , Jewellery/Artefacis -Fineness and Marking-Specification (Third Revision)

M/s . L. Bajrang Pershand &Co. 22-5-118/119 Kaljkaman Road GuljarHouse Hyderabad-500002

14543

12/30

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

M/s . Mahakali international S. No. 548 , 978, Chennai - Periyapalayam Road, Kanniaipair , Village Uthukottai Taluk TiruvallurDt . - 601 102

[No. EMD - 1 / 13 : 11 ]

P. DAKSHINAMURTY, Addl . Director General [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3449

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2003 /वैशाख 13 , 1925

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2003

का. आ. 1337.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962(1962 का 50) जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधित्तियम कहा गया है की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की, भारत के राजपत्र में तारीख 13 जुलाई 2002 को प्रकाशित अधिसूचना सं.का.आ. 2289 तारीख 9 जुलाई 2002 द्वारा , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गुरू गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड (हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिदेद्ध की समनुषगी), द्वारा मुन्द्रा भटिंडा अपरिष्कृत तेल पाइपलाइन परियोजना के माध्यम से गुजरात राज्य में मुन्द्रा पत्तनस्थित अपरिष्कृत तेल संस्थापन से पंजाब राज्य में भटिंडा तक, अपरिष्कृत तेल के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 26 अक्टूबर 2002 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ;

और पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में जनता से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है और उनका निपटान कर दिया गया है ;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात , और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जुन करने का विनिश्चय किया है ;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना में संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाता है ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन पर केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त गुरू गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड (हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड की समनुषगी ) में निहित होगा । [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 3450

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

अनुसूची

जिला : - कच्छ

तहसील : - मुन्द्रा

राज्य : - गुजरात

क्षेत्रफल

सर्वे सँख्या

भाग यदी है तो

गाँव का नाम

सेन्टी आर

हेक्टर आर

00 61

1. धब

169

पैकी

03 47

पैकी

2. मुन्द्रा

ट्रार्वस 141/1

02 59

पैकी

ट्रार्वस 141/1

पैकी

ट्रार्वस 141/1

00 19

पैकी

ट्रार्वस 141/1

38 12

पैकी

ट्रार्वस 141/1

00 05

पैकी

ट्रार्वस 141/1

पैकी

ट्रार्वस 141/1

पैकी

ट्रार्वस 141/1

पैकी

3. बारीइ

ट्रार्वस 207

14 38

216

00 06

219

18 23

217

00 04 26 218

पैकी

ट्रार्वस 207

00 05

नाला

पैकी

ट्रार्वस 207

कार्ट ट्रेक

165/1

165/2

00 25

163/1

163/2

00 07

163/3

35 162/1

161/1

01 50 161/2

99 161/6

00 01

10 161/5

00 02

कार्ट ट्रेक

170 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

तहसील : - मुन्द्रा

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2003 /वैशाख 13 , 1925

3451

जिला- कच्छ

गाँव का नाम

सर्वे सँख्या 1

171/3

171/4 3.बारोइ (जारी ... )

221

244/2(पुराना)

130/1

131/1

131/2

131/3

131/4

131/5

131/6

138

139

140/2

142/1

119

पैकी 4.गोवरसमा

48/1

48/2

48/3

10/1

पकी

ट्रार्वस 52

12/1

राज्य :- गुजरात

क्षेत्रफल

भाग यदी है तो

आर

हेक्टर

सेन्टी आर 3

00 00 32

00 07

00 03

कार्ट ट्रेक

00 17

00 00

कार्ट ट्रेक

00 00 47

00 05 59

00 05

00 06 41

00 05

00 06 03

00 08 91

00 17

00 10

00 00

कार्ट ट्रेक

00 05

00 01

00 00

00 16 25

00 10 87

00 01

00 17

00 22

00 20

00 07

32 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 3 , 2003/VAISAKHA 13, 1925

3452

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

राज्य:- गुजरात

जिला- कच्छ

तहसील :- मुन्द्रा

क्षेत्रफल

भाग यदी है तो

सर्वे सँख्या

गाँव का नाम

12/2

12/6

4.गोवरसमा (जारी... )

12/4

12/5

12/8

पैकी

14/2

पैकी

14/2

8/1

16/1

37/1

5. सडाउ

112

6. शेग्वडीया

110/2

110/1

113

114

115/2

पैकी

115/1

116

117/1

117/2

118/1

118/3

पैकी

ट्रार्वस120

2/2

2/1

आर सेन्टी आर

हेक्टर

26 03

01 22

कार्ट ट्रेक

00 01

कार्ट ट्रेक

00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

3453

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2003 /वैशाख 13 , 1925

जिला- कच्छ

तहसील :- मुन्द्रा

राज्य :- गुजरात

क्षेत्रफल गाँव कानाम

सर्वे सँख्या

भाग यदीहै तो

आर

हक्टर

सेन्टी आर

4 1

कार्ट ट्रक

01 82 6. शेखडीया (जारी ... )

[फा. सं. आर-31015/2/2002 -ओ.आर-11 ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi , the 29th April , -2003

S. O. 1337.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O.2289 dated the 9th July 2002, issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ), published in the Gazette of India dated the 13th July 2002, the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of crude oil from crude oil terminal at Mundra Port in the State of Gujarat to Bathinda in the State of Punjab throughMundra-Bathinda Crude Oil Pipeline by Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited ( a subsidiary ofHindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited); to that Andwhereas copies ofthe said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 26th October 2002;

And whereas , the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have beenconsidered and settled by the competent authority;

And whereas the competent authority has under sub- section ( 1) of section 6 of the said Act submitted report to the Central Government;

And whereas the Central Government, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for sing the pipeline, has decided to acquire the right ofuser therein;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby couired for laying the pipeline.;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest on the date of publication ofthe declaration, in the Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited ( a sabeldiary ofHindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited) free from all encumbrances .

115491/03-8 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13, 1925

3454

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]

SCHEDULE

State : - Gujarat

District:- Kutch

Taluka : - MUNDRA

ROU Area PartifAny

SurveyNo Name of Village

2 1

169 1. DHRAB

Trowers 141/1 2. MUNDRA

Trowers 141/1

Trowers 14.1/1

Trowers 141/1

Trowers 207 3. BAROI

216

219

217

218

Trowers 207

165/1

165/2

163/1

163/2

163/3

162/1

161/1

161/2

161/6

161/5

170

Ar. Sq.mt.

Ha .

Nala

CartTrack

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Taluka :- MUNDRA

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2003/वैशाख 13 , 1925

3455

District: - Kutch

Nameof Village SurveyNo

State: Gujarat

ROU Area

PartifAny

171/3

171/4 3. BAROI (Contd.)

Ha. Ar. Sq.mt. 3

00 07

17 CartTrack

221

244/2(Old)

00 03

00 13

00 17

06 CartTrack

130/1

131/1

131/2

131/3

131/4

131/5

131/6

138

139

00 00

00 05

00 06

00 05

00 06

00 08

00 17

00 10

22 CartTrack

140/2

142/1

119

P 4. GOVARSAMA

48/1

48/2

48/3

10/1

Trowers 52 P

12/1

00 00

00 05

00 01

00 00

00 16

00 10

00 01

00 17

00 22

00 20

00 07

32 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

3456

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )]

State: Gujarat

District :- Kutch

Taluka MUNDRA

ROU Area

PartifAny

Survey No

Name of Village

12/2

4. GOVARSAMA

12/6

(Contd.)

12/4

12/5

12/8

14/2

Sq.mt.

Ar .

Ha.

Cart Track

8/1

16/1

37/1

5. SADAU

112

6. SHEKHADIA

110/2

110/1

113

114

115/2

115/1

116

117/1

117/2

118/1

118/3

Trowers 120

2/2

2/1

00.

00 31

CartTrack

00 21

00 19

00 04

15.

00 50

CartTrack

[No. R-31015/2/2002- O.R. - II ]

HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy.

3457 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2003/वैशाख 13 , 1925

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 30 अप्रैल, 2003

का. आ. 1338.- केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 (1962 का 50 ) की धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण में और अधिसूचना सं. का. आ. 3260 तारीख 28 नवम्बर 2002 को जो भारत के राजपत्र भाग 2, खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) तारीख 01 दिसम्बर , 2001 को प्रकाशित की गई थी अधिकृत करते हुए नीचे दी गई सारणी के स्तंभ (1 ) में उल्लिखित व्यक्तियों को, गुजरात राज्य में उक्त सारिणी के स्तंभ (2) में विनिर्दिष्ट क्षेत्रों में अवस्थित विभिन्न उपभोक्ताओं को वितरण के लिए गुजरात में जामनगर और हजीरा स्थित एल. एन. जी. टर्मिनल से गुजरात राज्य और पार्श्वस्थ राजस्थान और मध्यप्रदेश राज्य तक पुनः वाष्पित प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए , मेसर्स गैस ट्रांसपोर्टेशन एण्ड इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर कंपनी लिमिटेड (जी.टी. आई. सी. एल.), जिसका रजिस्ट्रीकृत कार्यालय आर. पी. एल . हाउस, तीसरा तल, 15 वालचंद हीराचंद मार्ग बालार्ड एस्टेट, मुम्बई -400038 में है, द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए , उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है , अर्थात् -

अनुसूची

अधिकारिता का क्षेत्र

व्यक्तियों के नाम और पता

(1)

(2)

(1)

गुजरात राज्य के जामनगर, राजकोट, सुरेन्द्र नगर , अहमदाबाद, खेड़ा, साबरकन्था, पन्चमहल और दाहोद जिले ।

श्री के० बी० पाठक,, सेवानिवृत्त गुजरात राज्य प्रशासनिक सेवा के अधिकारी मार्फत मैसर्स गैस ट्रांसर्पोट्रेशन एण्ड इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर कंपनी, आर. पी. एल. हाउस , तीसरा तल 15 वालचंद हीराचंद मार्ग बालार्ड इस्टेट, मुम्बई-400038

गुजरात राज्य के जामनगर, राजकोट, सुरेन्द्र नगर, अहमदाबाद, खेड़ा, साबरकन्था, पन्चमहल, दाहोद, वालसाद, नावासारी , सूरत, बरूच , वदोदरा और अनंद जिले ।

(1 ) श्री ए ० के ० संघवी, सेवानिवृत्त गुजरात राज्य प्रशासनिक सेवा के अधिकारी मार्फत मैसर्स गैस ट्रांसर्पोटेशन एण्ड इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर कंपनी, आर . पी. एल. हाउस, तीसरा तल 15 वालचंद हीराचंद मार्ग बालार्ड इस्टेट , मुम्बई-400038

[फा. सं. एल.-14014/9/01 - जी.पी. (भाग-1 ) ]

स्वामी सिंह, निदेशक

New Delhi , the 30th April , 2003

S. O. 1338. In pursuance of clause ( a) of section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline ( Acquisition of Right ofUser in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1'962) and in supersession of Notification number S.O..3260 dated the 28th November,2001 published in the Gazette of India Part II , Section 3 , Sub- section ( ii ) on the 1ª December, 2001 the Central Government hereby authorize the persons mentioned in column ( 1 ) of the Table given below to perform the functions of the competent authorities under the said Act for laying of the pipeline by M/ S Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited (GTICL) having its Registered Office at R.P.L. House , 3rd floor, 15, Walchand Hirachand Marg , Ballard Estate, Mumbai -400038 for transportation of regasified natural gas in the State of Gujarat from the LNG terminals at Jamnagar and Hazira in Gujarat for distribution to various consumers located in the State of Gujarat and in the adjoining States of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh in respect of the areas specified in column (2) of the Sche namely: - 3458

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii )]

Table:

Name and Address of the persons

(1)

Areas ofjurisdiction (2)

Districts of Jamnagar , Rajkot , Surender Nagar, Ahmedabad , Kheda, Sabarkantha Panchmahal and Dahod of Gujarat State.

Shri K.B.Pathak, Retired Gujarat State Adminis- trative Service Officer , C/ o M/s Gas Transportation ⚫and Infrfastructure Company , R.P.L. House , 3rd Floor , 15 , Walchand Hirachand Marg , Ballard Estate Mumbai-400038 .

Districts of Jamnagar , Rajkot , Surender - Nagar, Ahmedabad, Kheda, Sabarkantha , Panchmahal , Dahod, Valsad , Navsari , Surat , Bharuch, Vadodara and Anand in Gujarat State

Shri A.K.Sanghvi , Retired Gujarat State Adminis- trative Service Officer , C/ o M/ s Gas Transportation and Infrfastructure Company , R.P.L. House , 3rd Floor , 15 , Walchand Hirachand Marg , Ballard Estate Mumbai - 400038 .

[No. L-14014/9/01- G.P.-(Pt . I) ] SWAMY SINGH , Director

नई दिल्ली, 30 अप्रैल, 2003

का. आ. 1339- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मेसर्स गैस ट्रांसपोर्टेशन एंड इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर कम्पनी लिमिटेड की संवर्धक कम्पनी मैसर्स रिलाएंस इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के गोवा के उत्तरी / दक्षिणी अपतट के खोज ब्लाकों और आन्ध्रप्रदेश में संचरनाओं से कर्नाटक राज्य के बेलगांव जिले के विभिन्न उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए , मेसर्स गैस ट्रांसपोर्टेशन एंड इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर कंपनी लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार ने भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मन्त्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 1148 तारीख 1 अप्रैल, 2002 जो भारत के राजपत्र भाग 2 , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) तारीख 6 अप्रैल 2002 में प्रकाशित की गई थी द्वारा उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि मे, जिसके भीतर उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हित्तबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा (3 ) की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतिया साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए श्री गोखले काशीनाथ, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , जी.टी.आई.सी.एल. एइवान- ई - शाही, गुलबर्गा-585 102 कर्नाटक राज्य को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3, 2003/वैशाख 13, 1925

3459

अनुसूची 3 (1)

तालुका चिकोडी

जिला बेळगांव

राज्य कर्नाटक

अ. क.

गांव का नाम

सर्वे नं

हिस्सा नं

गट नं

क्षेत्र

हेक्टेर

आर

सेंटीबार 1

8 1

337

2B/1+2

70 2

1+6

80 3

कोषनोलि

665

80 715

70 757

[फा. सं. एल.- 14014/20/02- जी.पी. ]

स्वामी सिंह, निदेशक

New Delhi , the 30th April , 2003

$. O. 1339.- Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest for the Transportation of the Natural Gas from exploration blocks in the Northern/ Southern offshore Goa and Structures in Andhra Pradesh of M/ s Reliance Industries Limited, the promoter company of M/ s Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited to the various consumers of District Belgaum in the state of Karnataka , a pipeline should be laid by M/ sGasTransportation and Infrastructure Company Limited;

And whereas the Central Government has declared its intention to acquire the right of user vide notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 1148 dated: 1st April, 2002 published in part II Section 3, Sub - section ( ii ) of the Gazette of India dated the 6th April , 2002;

And whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user (ROU) in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein.

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may , within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of the notification issued under sub - section (1 ) of section(3) of the said Act, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the pipeline under the land to Shri . Gokhale Kashinath, Competent Authority GTICL, Aiwan E Shahi Gulbarga - 585 102, Karnataka State .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003/VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

3460

SCHEDULE - 3 (1 )

District - Belgaum

Taluka Chikodi

Hissa No.

Survey No. Sl . No. Village Name

2B/1+ 2

337

Kurli

Appachiwadi

1+6

Total: -

665

Koganoli

715

757

Total: -

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

State Karnataka

Gat No.

Centiare

Area Are

Hectare

[No. L-14014/20/02-G.P. ]

SWAMY SINGH, Director

नई दिल्ली, 30 अप्रैल, 2003

का. आ. 1340.- केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का. आ. 1148 तारीख 01 अप्रैल, 2002 , जो भारत के राजपत्र भाग 2, खंड 3, उपखंड (ii ) तारीख 06 अप्रैल, 2002 में पृष्ठ 3342 से 3346 पर प्रकाशित की गई थी में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है ; अर्थात:-

उक्त अधिसूचना की अनुसूची में:-

1. पृष्ठ 3343 पर, स्तभ 2 में गांव " कुर्ली" के सामने, स्तंभ सं. 3,4 के सर्वे नं. " 332/3 " में स्तंभ सं. 6,7 और 8 में क्षेत्र " 0-04-80 " के स्थान पर क्षेत्र " 0-06-80 " रखा जाएगा ;

2. पृष्ठ 3343 पर, स्तंभ 2 में गांव "कुर्ली" के सामने, स्तंभ सं. 3,4 के सर्वे नं. " 332/6" में स्तंभ सं. 6,7 और 8 में क्षेत्र " 0-09-20" के स्थान पर क्षेत्र "0-10-00" रखा जाएगा ;

3. पृष्ठ 3343 पर, स्तंभ 2 में गांव "कुर्ली" के सामने, स्तंभ सं. 3,4 के सर्वे नं. " 335/10" में स्तंभ सं. 6,7 और 8 में क्षेत्र " 0-06-10" के स्थान पर क्षेत्र "0-10-80 " रखा जाएगा ;

4. पृष्ठ 3343 पर, स्तंभ 2 में गांव 'कुर्ली" के सामने , स्तंभ सं . 3.4 के सर्वे नं. "335/13 " में स्तंभ सं. 6,7 और 8 में क्षेत्र "0-00-80 " के स्थान पर क्षेत्र " 0-01-30 " रखा जाएगा ;

5. पृष्ठ 3344 पर, स्तंभ 2 में गांव "कुर्ली" के सामने, स्तंभ सं. 3,4 के सर्वे नं. " 345/2 " में स्तंभ सं. 6,7 और 8 में क्षेत्र " 0-05-10" के स्थान पर क्षेत्र " 0-15-90 " रखा जाएगा ;

6. पृष्ठ 3344 पर, स्तंभ 2 में गांव " कुर्ली" के सामने, स्तंभ सं. 3.4 के सर्वे नं. "346/7 " में स्तंभ सं. 6,7 और 8 में क्षेत्र " 0-14-90 " के स्थान पर क्षेत्र " 0-18-30 " रखा जाएगा ;

7. पृष्ठ 3344 पर, स्तंभ 2 में गांव " आपाचिवाड़ी" के सामने, स्तंभ सं. 3,4 के सर्वे नं. " 43 " में स्तंभ सं. 6.7 और 8 में क्षेत्र " 0-42-50 " के स्थान पर, क्षेत्र " 0-48-50" रखा जाएगा ;

3461

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2003/वैशाख 13, 1925

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

8. पृष्ठ 3345 पर, स्तंभ 2 में गांव "आपाचिवाड़ी के सामने, स्तंभ सं. 3,4 के सर्वे नं. "58" में स्तंभ सं. 6,7 और 8 में क्षेत्र "0-14-40 " के स्थान पर क्षेत्र "0-15-60" रखा जाएगा ;

9. पृष्ठ 3345 पर, स्तंभ 2 में गांव "आपाचिवाड़ी" के सामने, स्तंभ सं. 3.4 के सर्वे नं. "81/1 " में स्तंभ सं. 6,7 और 8 में क्षेत्र "0-02-40" के स्थान पर क्षेत्र "0-19-30" रखा जाएगा ;

10. पृष्ठ 3345 पर, स्तंभ 2 में गांव 'कोगनोलि" के सामने, स्तंभ सं. 3,4 के सर्वे नं. "647/2" में स्तंभ सं. 6,7 और 8 में क्षेत्र "0-14-80 " के स्थान पर क्षेत्र " 0-21-60" रखा जाएगा ;

11. पृष्ठ 3345 पर, स्तंभ 2 में गांव 'कोगनोलि' के सामने, स्तंभ सं. 3,4 के सर्वे नं. "647/3" में स्तंभ सं. 6,7 और 8 में क्षेत्र " 0-21-20" के स्थान पर क्षेत्र " 0-23-60" रखा जाएगा ;

12. पृष्ठ 3345 पर, स्तंभ 2 में गांव "कोगनोलि" के सामने, स्तंभ सं. 3,4 के सर्वे नं. " 647/4" में स्तंभ सं. 6,7 और 8 में क्षेत्र "0-21-10" के स्थान पर क्षेत्र " 0-29-60" रखा जाएगा ;

13. पृष्ठ 3348 पर, स्तंभ 2 में गांव 'कोगनोलि' के सामने, स्तंभ सं. 3,4 के सर्वे नं. " 652/7" में स्तंभ सं. 6,7 और 8 में क्षेत्र " 0-05-90" के स्थान पर क्षेत्र "0-06-90" रखा जाएगा ;

14. पृष्ठ 3346 पर, स्तंभ 2 में गांव 'कोगनोलि' के सामने, स्तंभ सं. 3,4 के सर्वे नं. " 719/1 " में स्तंभ सं. 8,7 और 8 में क्षेत्र "0-02-80" के स्थान पर क्षेत्र "0-03-60" रखा जाएगा ;

15. पृष्ठ 3346 पर, स्तंभ 2 में गांव 'कोगनोलि' के सामने, स्तंभ सं. 3,4 के सर्वे नं. "719/2 " में स्तंभ सं. 6,7 और 8 में क्षेत्र " 0-03-70 " के स्थान पर क्षेत्र " 0-04-20" रखा जाएगा ;

16. पृष्ठ 3348 पर, स्तंभ 2 में गांव 'कौगनोलि' के सामने, स्तंभ सं. 3,4 के सर्वे नं. "715/7" में स्तंभ सं. 6,7 और 8 में क्षेत्र "0-01-60" के स्थान पर क्षेत्र " 0-02-10" रखा जाएगा ;

17. पृष्ठ 3348 पर, स्तंभ 2 में गांव 'कोगनोलि" के सामने, स्तंभ सं. 3,4 के सर्वे नं. "745/1 , 745/2" में स्तंभ सं. 6,7 और 8 में क्षेत्र "0-52-90" के स्थान पर क्षेत्र " 0-55-90" जाएगा ;

[फा. सं. एल.- 14014/20/02- जी.पी. ]

स्वामी सिंह, निदेशक

'New Delhi , the 30th April , 2003

S. O. 1340.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (I ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas , number S. O. 1148 Dated: 01st April , 2002, published at pages 3347 to 3352 in part II , section 3, sub- section (ii) of the Gazette of India, Dated the 06th April , 2002, namely: -

Inthe Schedule to the said notification: -

( 1 ) at page 3348, against village " Kurli " in column 2, in Survey No. " 332/3 " in column 3, 4, for the areas " 0-04-80 " , in column 6, 7, and 8 the areas " 0-06-80 " shall be substituted. 115491/03-9 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003/VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

3462

( 2) at page 3348, against village " Kurli " in column 2 , in Survey No. " 332/6 " in column 3, 4, for the areas " 0-09-20" , in column 6, 7, and 8 the areas " 0-10-00" shall be substituted.substituted

(3) at page 3348, against village " Kurli " in column 2, in Survey No. " 335/10" in column 3 , 4, for the areas " 0-06-10" , in column 6, 7, and 8 the areas " 0-10-80 " shall be substituted. ituted. " (4) at page 3348, against village "Kurli " in column 2, in Survey No. " 335/13 " in column 3 , 4, for the areas " 0-00-80 " , in column 6 , 7, and 8 the areas " 0-01-30 " shall be:esubstituted.

(5) at page 3349, against village " Kurli " in column 2, in Survey No. "345/2 " in column 3, 4, for the areas " 0-05-10 " , in column 6, 7, and 8 the areas " 0-15-90 " shall be substituted.

(6)at page3349, against village " Kurll " in column 2, in Survey No. " 346/7 " in column 3, 4 , for the areas " 0-14-90" , in column 6, 7, and 8 the areas " 0-18-30 " shall be substituted.

(7 ) at page 3349, against village " Appachiwadi " in column 2, in Survey No. " 43" in column 3, 4, for the areas " 0-42-50 " , in column 6, 7, and 8 the areas " 0-48-50" shall beesubstituted (8) at page 3350 , against village " Appachiwadi " in column 2, in Survey No. " 58" in column 3, 4, for the areas " 0-14-40 " , in column 6, 7, and 8 the areas " 0-15-60 " shall be substituted.

(9) at page 3350 , against village " Appachiwadi " in column 2, in Survey No. " 81/1 " in column 3 , 4, for the areas " 0-02-40 " , in column 6, 7, and 8 the areas " 0-19-30 " shall be substituted.

(10 ) at. page 3351, against village " Koganoli " in column 2, in Survey No. " 647/2 " in column 3,4, for the areas "0-14-80 " , in column 6 , 7 , and 8 the areas "0-21-60 " shall be substituted.

( 11 ) at Page 3351 , against village " Koganoli " in column 2, in Survey No. "647/3 " in column 3, 4, for the areas " 0-21-20 " , in column 6 , 7, and 8 the areas " 0-23-60 " shall be substituted, (12 ) at page 3351 , against village " Koganoli " in column 2, in Survey No. " 647/.4 " in column 3, 4, for the areas " 0-21-10" , in column 6, 7, and 8 the areas " 0-29-60 " shall be substituted.

(13) at page 3351 , against village " Koganoli " in column 2, in Survey No. " 652/7" in column 3, 4, for the areas " 0-05-90 ", in column 6, 7, and 8 the areas " 0-06-90 " shall be substituted, (14) at page 3351 , against village " Koganoli " in column 2, in Survey No. " 719/1 " in column 3, 4, for the areas " 0-02-80 " , in column 6 , 7, and 8 the areas " 0-03-60 " shall be substituted (15) at page 3351 , against village " Koganoli " in column 2, in Survey No. " 719/2 " in column 3, 4, for the areas " 0-03-70 " , in column 6 , 7, and 8 the areas " 0-04-20 " shall be substituted.

(16) at page 3351 , against village " Koganoli " in column 2, in Survey No. " 715/7" in column 3, 4, for the areas " 0-01-60" , in column 6, 7, and 8 the areas " 0-02-10 " shall be substituted.

( 17 ) at page 3352, against village "Koganoli " in column 2, in Survey No.: " 745/ 1,745/ 2 " in column 3 , 4, for the areas " 0-52-90 " , in column 6, 7, and 8 the areas " 0-55-90 " shall be substituted.

[No. L-14014/20/02-G.P. ] SWAMY SINGH , Director [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

3463

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2003 /वैशाख 13 , 1925

नई दिल्ली, 30 अप्रैल, 2003

का. आ. 1341.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का. आ. 212 तारीख 22 जनवरी , 2002 और का. आ. 95 तारीख 9 जनवरी 2003 जो भारत के राजपत्र भाग 2, खंड 3 , उपखंड (ii ) क्रमशः तारीख जनवरी 2002, तथा 9 जनवरी 2002 को प्रकाशित की गई थी द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विर्निदिष्ट भूमि में मैसर्स गैस ट्रांसपोर्टेशन एंड इंन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर कम्पनी लिमिटेड की संप्रवर्तक कंपनी मैसर्स रिलायंस इन्डस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के गोवा के उत्तरी / दक्षिणी अपतट के खोज ब्लाकों और आन्ध्रप्रदेश की संरचनाओं से आन्ध्रप्रदेश राज्य में जिला मेंढक के विभिन्न उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की यह घोषणा की थी कि मैसर्स गैस ट्रांसपोर्टेशन एंड इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर कम्पनी लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

और , उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को तारीख 29 जनवरी 2003 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ;

और , सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है और उसमें उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित करने का विनिश्चय किया है ;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट उक्त भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ;

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निदेश देती है कि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार, इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से, केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त गैस ट्रांसपोर्टेशन एंड इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर कम्पनी लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

ऐरिया गांव का नाम

स्वें नंबर

सब-डिविजन नंबर

हेक्टेर

ऐर सि-ऐरं 1

6 मण्डल: जहीराबाद

जिला: मेषक

राष्ट : आन्ध्रप्रदेश

224

00 5. होथी (बुजरग)

[फा. सं. एल.-14014/3/02- जी.पी. ]

स्वामी सिंह , निदेशक [PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] 3464

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 3 , 2003/VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

New Delhi , the 30th April , 2003

S. O. 1341.- Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas , number S.O.212 dated the 22nd January , 2002 and S.O.95 dated the 9th January, 2003 published in the Gazette of India Part II , section 3 , sub- section (ii) dated the 26th January, 02 and dated the 11th January, 2003 respectively issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the lands , to that notification for the purpose of laying specified in the Schedule appended pipeline for transportation of the natural gas from the exploration blocks in the Northern/Southern Offshore of Goa and Structures in Andhra Pradesh of M /s Reliance Industries Limited, the promoter company of M/ s Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited to the various consumers of Medak District in the State of Andhra Pradesh, a Pipeline should be laid by M/s Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited;

And whereas , the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 29th January , 2003;

And whereas , the Competent Authority has under sub- section (1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, submitted report to the Central Government;

And further whereas , the Central Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying pipeline and has decided to acquire the right of user in the lands specified in the Schedule appended to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers'conferred by sub- section ( 1) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired, for laying the pipeline.;

And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (4 )of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest on this date of publication of this declaration, in Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited, free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

AREA

Sub-Division No

C-Are

Are

SurveyNo

Hectare

Name of the Village

Pradesh

State: Andhra

District: Medak

Mandal : Zaheerabad

224

1.Hothi(B)

Total

[No. L-14014/3/02-G.P. ] SWAMY SINGH , Director [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

श्रम मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 3 अप्रैल , 2003

का. आ. 1342.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. बी. एस. एल . कं . लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 68/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-04-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-29011/9/2002- आई. आर. ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF LABOUR

NewDelhi , the 3rd April , 2003

S.O. 1342. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 68/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- Cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of B. S. L. Co. Limited. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-04-2003

[No. L-29011/9/2002- IR(M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT , BHUBANESWAR PRESENT:

Shri S.K. Dhal , OSJS (Sr. Branch ) , Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T. -cum - Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

Industrial Dispute Case No. 68/2002 Date of conclusion of hearing-12th March , 2003 Date of Passing Award-24th March, 2003 BETWEEN :

At/Po . Birmitrapur ,

The Management of the General Manager , B.S.L. Co. Limited , Dist. Sundargarh . ... 1st Party-Management

AND

Their Workman , Shri Muralidhar

Kar, represented through the Secretary , Gangpur Labour Union , P. O. Birmitrapur , Dist. Sundargarh .

2nd Party - Union.

3465

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3, 2003 /वैशाख 13, 1925

APPEARANCES :

Shri B.C. Swain , Manager (Pand A)

Forthe Ist Party- Management Shri Bhikari Panigrahi ,

For the 2nd Party Union.

Secretary, Bangpur Labour Union ,

Birmitrapur

AWARD

TheGovernrnent of India in the Ministry of Labour , inexercise ofpowers conferred by Clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L-29011 /9/ 2002- IR(M), dated 26-07-2002:

"Whether the action of the Management of Birsa Store Lime Company Ltd. , Birmitrapur by not correcting the date of birth of Shri Muralidhar Kar , EPF No. OR/51 /21184 from 24-8-1945 to 20-10-1945 as per the matriculation certificate submitted at the time of appointment itself is justified? If not , what reliefthe workman is entitled to . "

2. The 2nd party in his Claim Statement has pleaded that he was appointed directly as monthly paid clerk due to his matric qualification has got promotion from Grade- 11 Clerk to Grade-I Clerk . The 2nd Party after knowing that his age recorded in Form -B Register of the Ist party- Management was erronous , he represented to the 1st Party- Management for correction of his age . But the 1st Party- Management did not consider his case . He raised a dispute after failure of conciliation proceeding , the present reference has been made . The 2nd Party has prayed for a direction to the Ist Party -Management for correction of hisage as recorded earlier in the Form- B register maintained by the 1st Party- Management .

3. The Ist Party- Management has not filed their Written Statement though they have taken several times to file the same.

4. When the case was posted for filing of Written Statement by the 1st Party- Management, both the parties have filed theMemorandum of Settlement and have prayed to pass Award as per the terms of the Memorandum of Settlement .Memorandum of Settlement filed by the parties isplaced which is read over and explained to both parties . They have agreed to be true .

5.Reference is answered accordingly and the Award is passed as per the terms of the Memorandum of Settlement , which would form the part of the Award .

Dictated & Corrected by me .

Bhubaneswar

Dated 27-3-2003

S. K. DHAL , Presiding Officer [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

3466

FORM 'H'

SEE RULE 58

any further issue thereto. Accordingly the Management agreed to accept the Date of Birth of Sri M. D. Kar P F. No. 21184 Clerk as recorded in matriculation certificate i.e. 20th October, 1945.

FORM FOR MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT

Itis, therefore, prayed by the both parties before the Hon'ble Tribunal to be kind enough to pass an order in the matter.

Signature of the Parties

Witnesses

Memorandum of settlement arrived at before the Presidng Officer , Central Govemment Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Bhubaneswar on 12th Day of March , 2003 over the Dispute between the Management of Bisra Stone Lime Company Limited, Birmitrapur and their workman represented by Gangpur Labour Union , Birmitrapur.

1. B. C. Swain

1. T.C. Sei Dy. General Manager(M)/ 1/c Name of the Parties :-

Onbehalfof the Union

2.Ram Badaik

Onbehalf of the Management

2. Bhikari Panigrahi Secretary 1. Sri Bhikari Panigrahi

1. Sri T.C. Sei , Dy. General Manager(M)/I/ c

नई दिल्ली, 4 अप्रैल, 2003

2. Sri B.C. Swain , Manager (P&A)

SHORT RECITAL OF THE CASE

का. आ. 1343.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार श्रीलंकन एअरलाइंस लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 48/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-04-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल -11012/2/2002- आई. आर. ( सी-1 ) ]

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 4th April , 2003 That, the Gangpur Labour Union , Birmitrapur raised an Industrial Dispute before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central ), Rourkela for correction of age of Sri M.D.Kar , P. F. No. 21184 , Clerk which was ended in failure . Subsequently the matter was referred to the Hon'ble Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Bhubaneswar vide I.D. case No. 68 / 2002(Central ).

TERM OF SETTLEMENT

That, the union requested the inanagement notto furtherproceed the matter and to consider the crrection of age of Sri M. D. Kar , PF. No.21184 , Clerk according to his matriculation certificate .

S. O. 1343.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref No. 48/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Chennai now as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Sri Lankan Airlines Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 03-04-2003

[No. L- 11012/2/2002- IR (C - 1 ) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy .

In order to maintain cordial relation both the parties agreed to settle the Dispute amicably without raising [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM -LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Friday, the 28th March , 2003

PRESENT :

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 48/2002 [ In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause ( d) ofsub -section ( 1 ) and sub -section 2(A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947( 14 of 1947) , between the Workman Sri R. Vijayakumar and the Management of Sri Lankan Airlines Ltd.)

BETWEEN

: 1 Party/ Workman

Sri R.Vijayakumar

AND

: II Party/Management The management of M/ s . Sri Lankan Airlines Ltd. , Chennai .

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Workman

: M/s . K.V. Krishnaswami &

Smt. Sulakshana - S ,

Authorised Representatives For the Management : M/s . King & Partridge , Advocates TheGovt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub -section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , have referred the concemed industrial dispute for adjudication vide Order No.L - 11012/2 /2002 /IR ( C- I ) dated 9-5-2002 .

3467

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2003/वैशाख 13 , 1925

On receipt of the order of reference from the Government of India , Ministry of Labour , this case has been taken on file as I.D. No.48/2002 and notices were sent to the parties to the dispute by registered post , with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 17-06-2002 to file their respective Claim Statement and Counter Statement and to prosecute this case further . Accordingly, the authorised representatives for the | Party/ Workman and the counsel on record for the II Party/Management have filed their respective claim statement and counter statement and prosecuted this case further .

Upon perusing the Claim Statement , Counter Statement , rejoinder/ additional statement filed by I Party/ Workman, additional Counter Statement filed by II Party/ Management, documentary evidence let in on the side of the II Party/Management alone , the other material papers on record, after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management alone . and thismatter having stood over till this date for consideration , thisTribunal has passed on merits , the following :-

AWARD

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above mentioned order of reference by the Central Govt . for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows:-

"Whether the termination of services of Shri R.Vijayakumar w.e.f. 3-8-1984 by the management of Sri Lankan Airlines Ltd. is fair, legal and justified ? If not to what relief is the workman entitled ?" 2. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the I Party/Workman Sri R. Vijayakumar ( hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) are briefly as follows :-

The Petitioner was working as an Office Helper in the II Party /Management M/ s . Sri Lankan Airlines Ltd. Chennai from 14-2-81 continuously without any blemish . Abomb blast took place on 2-8-84 at Chennai Airport . The [PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003/VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

3468

the 11 Party/Management to reinstate the Petitioner in service, with full back wages , continuity of service , together with all other attendant benefits .

3. The averments in the Counter Statement filed by theII Party/M/ s . Sri Lankan Airlines , Chennai , (hereinafter refers to as Respondent ) are briefly as follows:-

Themanagement of M /s . Sri Lankan Airlines earlier known as 'Air Lanka ' . The claim of the Petitioner is a stale one and is belated by 16 years and barred by laches . The termination of the Petitioner from service way back in May,1985. Most ofthe officers who were in service during 1985 are no longer in service of the Respondent / Management. Records available reveal that the Petitioner's services wereterminated in a justifiable and legal manner by the M/s . Sri Lankan Airlines management on 28-5-85 . Theorder oftermination was issued on the ground of bona fide and sincere loss of confidence to retain the Petitioner in the services of the Airlines. The Respondent is an international Airlines company . On 11-9-2001 commercial airlines were hijacked and used for terrorist activities claiming thousands of life in USA . The security and confidenceto travel in aircrafts has become a major concern among the people travelling by various airlines . Now a days, people are reluctant to travel by air lines of any airlines in view of the increased threat perception and as such the Respondent/Management also is facing difficulty in running the airlines . Keeping in mind, the security and confidence reposedby the travelling public in the airlines. Apowerful bomb blast took place in the Meenambakkam International Airport on 2-8-84 . This explosion caused the death of several innocent people and several others were maimed .The Petitioner Sri R.Vijayakumar was an accused in the criminal case pertaining to the bomb blast at the Meenambakkam International Airport on 2-8-84. On the basisof the fact that the Petitioner's conduct led him to be treated as an accused in the bomb blast's case . Hence , the Respondent/Management was under genuine and bona fide view that it would no longer be possible for the Petitioner was wrongly handed over to the police . On 3-8-84 when the Petitioner reported for duty he was not allowed to join and on suspicion , the police took him to custody. Thereafter he approached the management for employment . But the management informed the Petitioner thatthe question of employment may be considered after knowing the result of the criminal case against him . No charge sheet was framed against the Petitioner nor any domestic enquiry was conducted against him . The management based the question of his employment only on the judgement in the criminal case in connection with the saidbombblast . The Hon'ble High Court was pleased to acquit the Petitioner ofthe criminal charge framed against him by its order dated 28-4-2000 in C.A.No.704/89 . Immediately, the Petitioner reported to the management and requested to permit him to join duty but it was refused. Thereafter , the Petitioner caused a lawyer's notice on 7-2-2001 after waiting sufficiently for the managementto consider his employmentby repeated approaches personally. But all the attempts ofthe Petitioner went futile. Even after the receipt of the notice sent by the Petitioner, the management did not employ him . Thus the management has unlawfully terminated the Petitioner from service w.e.f. 3-8-84 . The action of the 11 Party /Management in terminating the Petitioner from service is wrong , illegal and opposed to principles of natural justice . The said wrong action of the management in terminating the Petitioner from service is liable to be set aside and the Petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages , continuity of service together with all other attendant benefits from 3-8-84. The Petitioner raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) Chennai . He could not arrive at an amicable settlement , hence submitted a failure report , which resulted in referring the dispute for adjudication by this Hona'ble Tribunal . The delay in raising the present dispute is not due to any inaction on the part ofthe Petitioner . Neither it is wilful nor wanton . The criminal case ended only on 28-4-2000 . Immediately, the Petitioner approached the management for reinstatement . But the management only was evading proper reply. Hence , the delay is not due to his fault. Therefore , it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleasedto pass an Award directing 3469 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2003/वैशाख 13 , 1925

issued to the Petitioner as to why his services should not be terminated on loss of confidence . Since the explanation submitted by the Petitioner was not satisfactory , by an order dated 28-5-85 his services were terminated. Along with the order dated 28-5-85 Rs.1086/- being one month salary in lieu of one month notice and also a sum of Rs.1629/- being the compensation as per Section 25F of theIndustrial Disputes Act was issued to the Petitioner. The Petitioner is a junior most employee in the office helper post and hence , the Respondent is fully justified in retrenching the services of the Petitioner by paying the compensation as per Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, this Hona'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss this case raised by the Petitioner.

5. The averments in the rejoinder filed by the Petitioner are briefly as follows: -

On 2-8-84 a bomb blast took place in Meenambakkaın airport supposed to have caused by the Ceylon Terrorists . On 3-8-84 the Petitioner went to office for reporting for duty. Without allowing the Petitioner to do his normal work. the Respondent had directed him to go with the police personnel who were present there to assist them in the investigation . After going to the police station only, the Petitioner came to know that he had been taken to custody . The Petitioner detained the Petitioner in their custody for threemonths and then released him on bail . On 17-4-85 the Respondent issued a letter to the Petitioner stating that he was unauthorisedly absent from duty from 3-8-84 andalso mentioning that they lost confidence in him because, he was taken to police custody relating to the case of boinb blast . The allegation that the Petitioner helped to purchase tickets etc. are baseless and invented for the purpose of this case . Hence, it deserves to be rejected . Hence , it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the order of termination of the Respondent/ Management with a direction to the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner in service with full back wages , continuity of service , all other attendant benefits .

International Airlines that has consistent security threats have in its midst an employee accused in the bomb blast's case in whom they have lost confidence and no longer could confined with . Therefore, irrespective of whether the Petitioner has been found guilty by a Criminal Court of law or not, the fact remains that the airlines management would no longer repose confidence in the Petitioner and retain him in service. Thus , keeping in mind the interest of Respondent airlines and its security aspects above all , the duty of the management towards travelling public is to maintain the safety ofthe passengers . Thus , it was felt that itwould be impossible to retain any further confidence in the Petitioner . The Respondent/Management had issued a letter dated 17-4-1985 to the Petitioner narrating the facts and circumstances which made it impossible for the airlines management to retain the Petitioner in service. The Petitioner submitted his reply dated 27-4-85 . After careful consideration of his reply and a very fact being that the Petitioner was an accused in the criminal case pertainingto bomb blast that killed 30 innocent persons would no longer continue his services as it has lost confidence in the Petitioner . In these circumstances , as per law, and after complying with all the legal requirements , the Petitioner was discharged by the Respondent airlines by its letter dated 28-5-85 on the basis of genuine and bona fide loss of confidence . The Hon'ble High Court of Madras allowed the criminal appeal of the Petitioner on the ground of benefit ofdoubt. In the criminal case , pertaining to the bomb blast the case of the prosecution is that the Petitioner who was only an office helper in the Respondent airlines had facilitated purchase of tickets to the co- accused and was thus , involved directly in the bomb blast . When there is such a serious allegation against the Petitioner who eventually was convicted by the Sessions Court but acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt, it will be highly impossible to continue the services of such tainted person by the Respondent and the management have no confidence to continue such a person in its service . The unexplained and inordinate delay of 16 years on the part of the Petitioner should be held against him . Hence , it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss this industrial dispute .

4. The averments in the additional Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/ Management are briefly as follows:-

6.When the matter was taken up for enquiry , no one hasbeen examined as a witness on either side. No document has been exhibited on the side of the Petitioner/Workman , 6documents on the side of the II Party/Management have been marked as Ex.Ml to M6 . No argument has been advanced on the side of the Petitioner . The learned counsel for the Respondent /Management has advanced his arguments .

7. The point for my consideration is - ThePetitioner was terminated on 28-5-85 hence the filesrelating to the Petitioner was not traced immediately . With the available records , the Counter Statement dated 9-9-2002 was prepared reserving the right to file additional Counter Statement . The files relating to the Petitioner since traced , disclose that the last drawn wage of the Petitioner was Rs - 1086/- and not Rs.3500/-as alleged in the Claim Statement . The show cause notice dated 17-4-1985 was

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003/VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

Point : -

It is admitted that when the Petitioner was working as an Office Helper in the Respondent M/s. Sri Lankan Airlines Ltd. , Chennai , a bomb blast took place on 2-8-84 at Chennai Airport and in connection of the same, police took the Petitioner in custody and a criminal case has been filed bythe police in respect of the bomb blast incident and the Petitioner was also prosecuted by the policy as one among the accused. It is also admitted that the Sessions Court , who found the Petitioner guilty of the charges , convicted himbut on appeal preferred by the Petitioner in the Hon'ble High Court ofMadras , he was acquitted by an order dated 28-4-2000.

Airlines that has constant security threat to have in its midst an employee in whom they could have no further confidence and that irrespective of whether or not the Petitioner has been found guilty by a criminal court , the fact remains that the Respondent would no longer repose confidenee in the Petitioner as to be able to retain him in service. It is further reiterated in the reply that the reason for termination of the Petitioner's services is loss of confidence to retain him in service any longer and has nothing to do with whether he is guilty of the offence for which he was proceeded against in a criminal court or not. It is also mentioned in that reply of the Respondent that thePetitioner's services were terminated not for misconduct but on the basis of genuine and bona fide loss of confidence . It is not denied that the Respondent/ Management in terminating the services by an order dated 28-5-1985 has paid Rs. 1086 /- one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice and a compensation of Rs . 1629/- as contemplated under section 25F. It is mentioned in Ex.M4 order of termination itself. So under such circumstances , theRespondent/Management had not framed any charges against the Petitioner and had not held any domestic enquiry. The learned counsel for the Respondent/ Management has argued that the order of termination of the service of the Petitioner passed by Respondent/ Management under Ex.M4 does not suggest any misconduct on the part of the Petitioner , but has clearly stated that the Respondent/Management had losı confidence in the Petitioner and this loss of confidence was due to the fact that the Petitioner was considered was one of the accused in the criminal case relating to bomb blast took place in the Chennai Airport . That is also mentioned in the termination order under Ex.M4 itself. So once a bona fide loss of confidence is affirmed the order of termination must be considered to be imniured fron challenge. For this argument , the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management has relied upon a judgement of the Supreme Court reported in 1972 (25 ) FLR 390 AIR INDIA CORPORATION , BOMBAY Vs. V.A. REBELLOW AND ANOTHER. In that case , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "once bona fide loss of confidence is affirmed, the impugned order must be considered to be immune from challenge. The opinionformed by the employer about the suitability of his employee for the job assigned to him eventhough erroneous , if bonafide is final and not subject to review by the Industrial Adjudication . Such upinion may legitimately induce the employer to termirate the employee's services that such termination can on no rational grounds be considered to be for misconduct and must therefore, be permissible and iminunefrom challenge " Here, in this case there is no allegation on the side of the Petitioner that this action of the Respondent/Management is mala fide . So from this it is seen that the order dated 28.5.1985 has not been passedby the Respondent/ Management for any misconduct ofthe Petitioner but only on the ground of loss of confidence in him and on the opinion of the Respondent/Management that it will be impossible to retain the Petitioner in service any longer . Such opinion happens to be a legitimate one which 8. Ex . Ml is the xerox copy of the appointment letter dated 14-12-81 appointing the Petitioner as Office Helper . Ex.M2 is the xerox copy of the letter dated 17-4-85 issued bythe Respondent to the Petitioner directing him to submit his explanation in writing, as the Respondent/Management arenot in a position to retain confidence in him , since he is one ofthe accused in the criminal case relating to the bomb explosion in the Madras International Airport on 2-8-84 . EX.M3 is the xerox copy of the explanation dated 27-4-85 submitted by the Petitioner . Ex.M4 is the xerox copy ofthe letter dated 28-5-85 terminating the services of the Petitioner from the Respondent/ Management . Ex.M5 is the xerox copy of the legal notice issued by the Petitioner through his advocate to the Respondent/ Management. Ex.M6 is the xerox copy of the reply dated 22-2-2001 sent by the Respondent/Management through their advocate to the Petitioner's advocate . It is not disputed that the Petitioner was taken into custody by the police in respect of bomb blast in the International Airport at Meenambakkam on 2-9-34 and the Petitioner was employed as Office Helper in the Respondent M/ s . Sri Lankan Airlines Ltd. at Chennai at that time, who was found first guilty by the Sessions Court and was convicted but in the appeal , the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to acquit him on the ground that the prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt . When the Petitioner has approached the Respondent/Management , subsequent to theorder ofacquittal passed by High Court in the Criminal Appeal , the Respondent/ Management was not inclined to reinstate the Petitioner in service on the ground that they could no longer repose confidence in the Petitioner to retain him in service. In the earlier letter dated 28-5-1985 issued to the Petitioner for terminating the services ofthe Petitioner marked as Ex.M4 , it is clearly stated by the Respondent/ Management that considering that the Petitioner is one of the accused in the criminal case relating to bomb explosion thattook place in Madras International Airport on 2-8-84, they feel that they are not in a position to repose any confidence in the Petitioner and they bona fide and sincerely feel that since they have lost confidence in him , it will be impossible to retain him in service any longer . They have stated so in their subsequent reply given to the advocate's notice sent by the Petitioner. In that Ex.M6 it is stated that the Respondent were of the genuine and bonafide view that it would no longer be possible for an International [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

3471

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2003/वैशाख 13 , 1925

(Dictated to the Stenographer , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court onthis day the 28th March , 2003.)

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:-

Oneither side

: None

Documents Exhibited:-

: Nil

Forthe I party/Workman

For the II Paty/Management :-

Ex.No. Date

Description

MI 14-12-81

Xerox copy ofthe appointment letter issued to Petitioner .

M2 17-04-85 Xerox copy of the letter from the Respondent/Management Petitioner calling for explanation . to

M3 27-04-85

Xerox copy of the explanation submitted by Petitioner .

M4 28-05-85

Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent/Management to the Petitioner terminating him from service.

M5 07-02-01 Xerox copy of the legal notice issued by Petitioner's advocate to the Respondent.

M6 22-02-01 Xerox copy ofthe reply given by the Respondent.

नई दिल्ली, 4 अप्रैल, 2003

का. आ. 1344.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण II , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 187/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-04-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं ० एल-20012/391/98- आई. आर. ( सी-1 ) ]

एस. एस. गुप्ता , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 4th April , 2003 induces the Respondent/Management to terminate the Petitioner from the services of the Respondent/ Management. So , as it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited case , the said action of the Respondent/Management cannot be challenged as unfair, illegal or unjustified . In another case reported as 1997 6 SCC 271 between SUDHIR VISHNU PANVALKAR and BANK OF INDIA , the Supreme Court has held that "termination of service simpliciter by an order issued as non-stigmatory due to loss of confidence ofthe employer on the employee cannot be said as invalid. " In that case , the facts are quite similar to the present case . The employee has challenged the termination after acquittal from the criminal case . The termination was ordered when the criminal charges were framed against the employee and the trial court convicted him but the High Court had acquitted him. The employee made a representation to the employer to consider his case for reinstatement sympathetically on the basis of the acquittal by the High Court and on the basis of the observation by the High Court that the empoyee's representation should be considered sympathetically . It was held in that case by the Supreme Court that " ifa bank thought itfittoterminate the services ofthe appellant on theground ofloss ofconfidence, such an action could not be said to be unwise or malafide action, we therefore, find no illegality in upholding thefinding ofthe DivisionBench that the Writ Petition filed by the appellant sufferedfrom the vice ofdelay and laches . " In that case also the appellant filed a Writ Petition in the High Court in the year 1975 to quash the order passed by the bank management in the year 1971. Though the Writ Petition was allowed by a Single Judge, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground of laches and also on merits . That decision of the Division Bench of the High Court has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the above citedjudgement. In another case reported as 1972 24 FLR 229 between WORKMEN OF SUDDER OFFICE , CINNAMARA and MANAGEMENT OF SUDDER OFFICE AND ANOTHER, the Supreme Court has held that a order not one by way of dismissal but termination simpliciter on the ground ofloss ofconfidence and trust inworkmen when it is not a victimisation , unfair labour practice or mala fide, it cannot be set aside. Onthe basis of the above cited judgements of the Supreme Court which are quite applicable to the facts of this case , it is seen that the order of termination simpliciter passed by the Respondent/Management against the Petitioner on loss ofconfidence in the Petitioner to retain him in service any longer subsequent to 28-5-1985 is fair, legal andjustified. The services of the Petitioner has not been terminated by the management of M/ s . Sri Lankan Airlines w.e.f. 3-8-84 as mentioned in the reference .As per the order under Ex.M4 the Petitioner's services were terminated with immediate effect i.e. on 28-5-1985 . Hence , the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief. Thus , the point is answered accordingly.

S.O. 1344. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref No. 187/99 ) of the Central Govemment Industrial Tribunal II , Dhanbad as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 03-04-2003

9. In the result, an Award is passed holding that the concerned workman Sri R. Vijayakumar is not entitled for any relief. No Cost .

[No. L-20012/391 /98 - IR ( C - 1 ) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy .

[PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

3472

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2, AT DHANBAD

PRESENT:

Shri B. Biswas, Paresiding Officer

Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute Under Section 10(1) (d) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947

Reference No. 187 of 1998.

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of Lodna Area ofM/ s . BCCL and their workman .

APPEARANCES:

None

Onbehalf of the workman :

None

Onbehalf of the employers :

Industry: Coal.

State : Jharkhand .

Dated, Dhanbad , the 21st March , 2003

ORDER

absent. There is also no scope to answer the reference on merit in absence of any W.S. and available documents. There is no dispute to hold that when any reference is made it is expected to be disposed of on merit but when the parties do not take any step or do not consider even to file W.S. such expectation to dispose of the reference on merit comes to an end. It is not expected that for years together the Court will persue the matter suo moto with the expectations for appearance of the parties inspite of issuance ofregistered notices . As per I.D. Act the workmen excepting under provisions of Section 2A is debarred from raising any industrial disputes . The disputes are mainly raised by the Union for their workman . These unions inspite of receiving notices do not care to appear before the Court for the interest of the workman and as a result they have been deprived of getting any justice . Until and unless the attitude of the union is changed I consider that this uncalled for situation will persist. Definitely it is the duty ofthe Court to dispose of the reference on merit but it depends on the cooperation of both sides . Here record will clearly expose that sufficient opportunities had been given to the parties but yielded no result . This attitude shows clearly that the parties are is not interested to proceed with the hearing of the case for disposal on merit.-

TheGovernment of India Ministry of Labour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/391/98 - IR(C- I) dated, the 17th April, 1999.

SCHEDULE

In view of the facts and circumstances , I also do not find any sufficient reason to drag on the case for an indefinite period. Accordingly as there is no scope to dispose of the reference in question on merit, the same is closed.

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 4 अप्रैल, 2003

"Whether the demand of the Union from the management of Iodna Area of M/s . BCCL for putting Sri M. K. Guha in Execva. cadre and promoting him in Execvn . Gr. ' A ' or equivalent to Sri R. C. Mishra and other juniors is justified ? If so , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

का. आ. 1345.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा.को. को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण II धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 70/96 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-4-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/182/95- आई.आर. ( सी. 1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता , अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 4th April , 2003

S. O. 1345.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 70/96) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / 11 - Dhanbad now as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 3-4-2003 .

[No. L- 20012/182/95-1R (C - 1 ) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

2. In this reference neither the concerned workman nor his representative appeared before this Tribunal . The management also did not appear in this reference . It is seen from the record that the instant reference was received by this Tribunal on 20-5-99 and since then it is pending for disposal . Registered notices were also issued to the workman as well as to the management but none of them turn up . In terms of Rule 10B of the I.D. Central Rules , 1957 submission of W.S. by the concerned workman within 15 days is a mandatory one . The concerned workman not only violated the said provision of the Rules but also did not consider necessary to give any response to the notices issued by this Tribunal. In natural course the question which will arise is what will be the fate of the reference made by the Ministry for ' ts disposal . The reference is made on the basis of dispute raised by the concerned workman /union . Naturally responsibility rests with the concerned workman/union to assist the court to dispose of the reference in issue on merit . In view of the decision reported in 2002 ( 94) FLR 624 it will not be just and proper to pass ' No dispute ' Award when both the parties remain [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2003 /वैशाख 13, 1925

3473 ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer

Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute Under Section 10( 1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947

Reference No. 70 of1996.

PARTIES:

Employer in relation to the management of M/ s . BCCL and their workman .

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the workman : Shri S. Bose, Treasurer , R.C.M.S.

Onbehalf of the employers : Shri D. K. Verma, Advocate .

State : Jharkhand.

Industry: Coal .

Dated, Dhanbad , the 20th March , 2003

AWARD

The Government of India Ministry of Labour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1 )( d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. 20012/ 182/ 95 - IR (C- 1 ) dated, the 26th July, 1996.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand for regularisation of Sh . Haridwar Chauhan , General Manager as Store Keeperw.e.f. 21-4-90 by the union is justified ? If so , to what relief is the workman entitled ? "

which the sponsoring union asserted in the W.S. on behalf ofthe concerned workman . They submitted that the post ofgeneral mazdoor is in the lowest category amongst the time rated workers and Store Keeper is in the higher grade in clerical cadre and there exists cadre scheme for promotion of time rated workers as well as clerical staff. They disclosed that whenever any vacancy exists in clerical cadre in any area all eligible persons possessing requisite qualification and experience may be given opportunity to appearbefore the Selection Board or Selection Committee to select the person's on the basis of individual merit and the time rated or piece rated workers may be put in clerical grade on the basis of selection for filling up the vacancies. They submitted that after introduction of cadre scheme , there is no scope for selecting any person of time rated or piece rated group directly in the clerical cadre without affording equal opportunity to all eligible candidates . They sumitted that the entry level for promotion to the clerical cadre can only be given in Grade - ill and the vacancies exists in higher grades viz. grade 11 , grade 1 etc. can only be filled up by promotion from the lower grade . No one can be directly appointed as Store Keeper in grade I ignoring the provision of the cadre scheme and superseding the senior persons in clerical Grade 11 and clerical Grade. III . They alleged that the present demand of the Union amounts to showing special favour to the concerned workman who is working in the store as general mazdoor in Category 1. If such demand is acceded to , it will mean that promotion will be given to him superseding not only the workman in Cat . 11 to Cat. VI but also superseding the persons who are in clerical Grade III and Grade II which they considered is absured to follow . They further submitted that the concerned workman who is a general mazdoor in Cat . I was never authorised as a competent person to work as Store Keeper in Clerical Grade, 2.The case of the concerned workman according to W.S. submitted by the sponsoring Union on his behalf in brief is as follows :-

1. They disclosed that the Store Keeper have to perform various duties releating to maintenance of records , ledgers , documents , store accounting , store valuation etc. and the concerned workman being a general mazdoor placed in the store department had no knowledge of any kind to perform such duties . He being a general mazdoor performs only general type of duties without involving the jobs of clerical nature carried on in the store . Accordingly, they submitted prayer to pass award rejecting the fictitious claim of the sponsoring Union .

5. The points to be decided in this reference are :-

"Whether the demand for regularisation of Sh . Haridwar Chauhan , General Mazdoor as Store Keeperw.e.f. 21-4-90 by the union is justified ? If so. towhat relief is the workman entitled ? "

DECISION WITH REASONS The sponsoring union submitted that the concerned workman is a permanent employee engaged in the capacity of a Store Keeper at Mohuda Coal washery under Mohuda Area II under the management with effect from 3-3-89. They submitted that the concerned workınan is designated as unskilled workman in Category I wage rate but was placed on duty as a store keeper as the said post was lying vacant. They disclosed that as the concerned workan was engaged continuously for performing the duty of a store keeper they raised the matter several times with the management for his regularisation as Store Keeper but to no effect . Ultimately they raised an industrial dispute on behalf of the workman before the ALC ( C).Dhanbad for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for passing necessary award .

6. It transpires from the record that both the sponsoring Union and the manageinent have examined on witness each in order to substantiate their respective claim .

3. The sponsoring Union accordingly submitted their prayer to pass award directing the management for regularisation ofthe concerned workman as Store Keeper with effect from 21-4-90 along with consequential relief.

Considering the facts disclosed in the pleadings of both sides and also considering the evidence of MW - 1 and WW - 1 I find no dispute to hold that the concerned as general mazdoor in Cat . I posted at Mohuda Coal Washery 4. Management on the contrary after filing W.S.- cum - rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

3474

The concerned workman though relied on certain documents which have been marked as Exhibit in course of his cross -examination admitted that he had no paper to show that under direction ofthe management he performed the duties of clerk in the store. The concerned workman in course ofhis evidence has failed to show a single scrap of paper that from General Mazdoor Cat . I he got his promotion in ClerkGr. 111 & 11 and during that period he accrued his sufficient seniority to place his claim for promotion as Store Keeper which is a higher post in Clerk Gr. I. The concerned workman never claimed either personally or through his sponsoring union that he discharged his function as Asstt . Store Keeper. Considering all facts and circumstances , there is sufficient reason to believe that the D.P.M. S.Ram designated the concerned workman as Asstt. Store Keeper exceeding his limit and probably with some ulterior motive particularly when he was very much aware that the concerned workman was a Generalmazdoor Cat. I while he was posted in the store .As P.M. I think it was very much within his knowledge that a general mazdoor cannot be designated as Asstt . Store Keeper without getting his promotion in Clerk Grade. III or II . As the role ofS. Ram Dy . P.M. appears to be questionable inview of the facts discussed above for the interest of clean administration it is expected that the appropriate authority will enquire into the matter through its vigilance cell .

under Mohuda Area. II . It is the claim of the sponsoring Union that as that the post of Store Keeper in the store remained vacant the management engaged the concerned workman in the store for discharging his duties as Store Keeper with effect from 3-3-89 and since that date as he continuously discharged the function as Store Keeper they submitted representation to the management for his regularisation as Store Keeper. It is the allegation of this sponsoring union that the management ignored the claim ofthe concerned workman illegally and arbitrarily . On the contrary it is the claim of the management that the concerned workman was posted in the store as general mazdoor Cat . I. They disclosed that the post of store keeper is a senior post under clerical grade I and that post is filled up under cadre scheme from clerical grade II on the basis of his qualification and experience . They submitted that initially the post of Clerk in Grade III is filled from amongst the existing time rated and piece rated workmen by the selection Board on the basis of qualification and seniority. Thereafter, step by step the clerks in grade III are eligible to get their promotion in Clerk Grade II and Clerk Grade I on the basis of selection subject to fulfilment of the condition relating to qualification and seniority . They disclosed that if the claim of the sponsoring union is accepted in that case superseding the workman of Cat. II to Cat. VI and superseding the Clerks of Grade III to Grade II that promotion is to be given to him which is not only impracticable but also if it is so done the entire promotional policy as per N.C.W.A. willbe frustrated totally. The management further disclosed that to perform job of store keeper proficiency is required very much because of the fact that as part of duty he has to perform various duties relating to maintenance of records ledgers, documents , store accounting, store valuation etc.

8.Management submitted categorically that as a part of duty a Store Keeper has to maintain records, ledgers , documents store accounting, store verification etc. and such delicatejob cannot be performed by a General Mazdoor without having sufficient experience. It is fact that the cancernedworkman relied on certain document in the matter ofdischarging his duties as Store Keeper. Apart from these documents the concerned workman has failed the adduce any cogent evidence to show that as general mazdoor Cat. Ihehad toperform duties relating to maintenance of records, ledgers, documents , store accounting, store valuation etc. I have carefully considered the documents which the concerned workman relied on . Relying on these documents there is no scope to draw any conclusion that he performed the duties of Store Keeper. MW- 1 who was in overall charge of the store in course ofhis evidence categorically denied the claim of the concerned workman about discharging his duties as Store Keeper .

The concerned workman in course of his evidence relied on the documents marked as Ext . W- 1 to W- 1 /3 in order to show which duties he had to perform in the stores. He also relied on other documents . He submitted that in the store he had to perform the duties of store keeper and such jobs he had to perform for years together under active direction of the management. The concerned workman also relying on an offfice note Ext . W- 12 submitted that the personal Manager Mohuda Coal Washery requested the appropriate authority to fill up certain vacancies including the post of Store Keeper . In the said office notes the P.M. designated the concerned workman asAsstt . Store keeper since 21-4-1990.

9. It is admitted fact that the post of store keeper is a cadre post under clerical grade I. NCWA has clearly pointed out how a cadre post is to be filled up . Onus absolutely rests on the sponsoring Union/concerned workmantojustify that a general mazdoor in Cat . I is very much entitled to get his regularisation in the post of Store Keeper directly avoiding clear guidance of N.C.W.A. After careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances there is reason to believe that in discharge of his duties as GeneralMazdoor Cat. I in the store he might have performed some clerical jobs but for that reason there is no scope to saythat he was authorised by the management officially to act as Store Keeper. For performance of some duties which are clerical in nature if the claim ofthe concerned workman is entertained it will not only frustrate the scheme of 7. The sponsoring Union as well as the concerned workman in course of his evidence submitted that he was posted in the store as Store Keeper with effect from 3-3-1989 . Para 2 of the W.S. on behalf of the concerned workman has supported this fact . There is no dispute to hold that before getting his posting there he was general mazdoor Cat . I. The P.M. in the notes sheet disclosed that the concerned workman was working as Asstt . Store Keeper since 21-4-1990 . There is no dispute to hold that postofAsstt . Store Keeper is a Cadre post in clerical Grade IIwhich is filled up through Selection Board from ClerkGr. III subject to fulfilment of qualification and experience .

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3475

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3, 2003/वैशाख 13, 1925

Dated, Dhanbad, the 21st March, 2003 ORDER

The Government of India Ministry of Labour , in promotion as laid down in N.C.W.A. , but also the eligible workman who are also expecting their promotion in senior posts will be deprived. If such order is passed it will not onlybe considered illegal or improper but also it will violate the principle of natural justice .Accordingly, I hold that the concerned workman is not entitled to get any award in support of his prayer .

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/430/96- IR( Coal - I) dated, the 20th February, 1998 .

In the result, the following award is rendered: -

SCHEDULE

"The demand for regularisation of Sh . Haridwar Chauhan, General Mazdoor as Store Keeper w.e.f. 21-4-90 by the union is not justified . Consequently the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief."

"Whether the action of the management of Bhulanbararee Colliery of M/ s . BCCL in denial to regularise Shri Ashim Kumar Mitra as M /Clerk is justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

B. BISWAS, PresidingOfficer .

नई दिल्ली, 4 अप्रैल, 2003

का. आ. 1346.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण II धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 48/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-04-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-20012/430/96- आई . आर. ( सी-1 ) ]

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 4th April , 2003

S.O: 1346.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref No. 48/98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal II , Dhanbad now as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 03-04-2003 .

[No. L- 20012/430/96- IR(C- 1 )]

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT:

Shri B. Biswas , PresidingOfficer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute Under Section 10( 1 ) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Reference No. 48 of1998 .

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to Bhulanbararee Colliery of M/s. BCCL and their workman .

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf ofthe workman : None

Onbehalfofthe employers : None

State : Jharkhand .

Industry: Coal .

2. Inthis reference neither the concerned workman nor his representative appeared before this Tribunal. The management also did not appear in this case . It is seen from the record that the instant reference was receivedby thisTribunal on 16-3-1998 and since then it is pending for disposal . Registered notices were also issued to the workman as well as to the management but none of them turned up. In terms of Rule 10B of the 1.D. Central Rules , 1957 submission of W.S. by the concerned workman within 15days is a mandatory one . The concerned workman not only violated the said provision of the Rules but also did not consider necessary to give any response to the notices issued by this Tribunal . In natural course the question which will arise is what will be the fate of the reference made by the Ministry for its disposal . The reference is made on the basis of dispute raised by the concerned workman/union . Naturally responsibility rests with the concerned workman/union to assist the court to dispose ofthe reference in issue on merit . In view of the decision reported in 2002 (94) FLR 624 it will not be just and proper to pass 'No dispute' Award when both the parties remain absent. There is also no scope to answer the reference on merit in absence of any W.S. and available documents . There is no dispute to hold that when any reference is made it is expected to be disposed of on merit but when the parties do not take any step or do not consider even to file W.S. such expectation to dispose of the reference on merit comes to an end . It is not expected that for years together the Court will persue the matter suo moto with the expectations for appearance of the parties inspite of issuance of registered notices .As per I.D. Act the workman excepting under provisions of Section 2A is debarred from raising any industrial disputes. The disputes are mainly raised by the Union for their workmen . These unions inspite ofreceiving notices do not care to appear before the Court for the interest of the workman and as a result they have been deprived of getting anyjustice . Until and unless the attitude oftheunion is changed 1 consider that this uncalled for situation will persist . Definitely it is the duty of the Court to dispose of the reference on merit but it depends on the cooperation on both sides . Here the record will clearly expose that sufficient opportunities had been given to the parties but yielded no result. This attitude shows clearly that the parties are not interested to proceed with the hearing of the case for disposal on merit .

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2003/VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

3476

SCHEDULE

Inview of the facts and circumstances , I also do not find any sufficient reason to drag on the case for an indefinite period. Accordingly as there is no scope to dispose of the reference in question on merit, the same is closed.

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer

"Whether the action of the management of Katras Chaitudih Colliery ofM/s . BCCL in dismissing Shri Salim Ansari , M/Loader w.e.f. 29-5-1996 from the services of the company only on the ground of unauthorised absence from duty from 6-7-1995 is justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

नई दिल्ली, 4 अप्रैल, 2003

का. आ. 1347.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा . को. को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण II धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 88/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-04-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-20012/51/98- आई. आर. ( सी-1 ) ]

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

NewDelhi, the 4th April, 2003

S.O. 1347.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref No. 88/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal II , Dhanbad now as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 03-04-2003

[No. L-20012/51 /98 - IR (C- 1 ) ] S. S. GUPTA , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO . 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT:

Shri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute Under Section 10( 1 ) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Reference No. 88 of 1999

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Katras Chaitudih Colliery of M/s . BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalfof the workman : None

Onbehalf of the employers : None

Industry: Coal.

State : Jharkhand.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 21st March , 2003

2. In this reference neither of the parties turned up before this Tribunal . It is seen from the record that the instant reference was received by this Tribunal on 12-2-1999 and since then it is pending for disposal . Registered notices were issued to the workman as well the management but inspite of the issuance of notices they failed to turn up . In terms of Rule 10B ofthe I.D. Central Rules, 1957 submission of W.S.by the concerned workman within15 days is a mandatory one . The concerned workman not only violated the said provision of the Rules but also did not consider necessary to give any response to the notices issued by this Tribunal . In natural course the question which will arise is what will be the fate of the reference made by the Ministry for its disposal . The reference is made on the basis of dispute raised by the concerned workman/union . Naturally responsibility rests with the concerned workman /union to assist the court to dispose of the reference in issue on merit . In view of the decision reported in 2002 (94) FLR 624 it will not be just and proper to pass 'No dispute ' Award when both the parties remain absent . There is also no scope to answer the reference on merit in absence of any W.S. and available documents . There is no dispute to hold that when any reference is made it is expectedto be disposed on merit but when the parties do not take any step or do not consider even to file W.S. such expectation to dispose ofthe reference onmerit comes to an end. It is not expected that for years together the Court will persue the matter suo moto with the expectations for appearance for the workman and the management inspite of issuance of registered notices . As per I.D. Act the workmen excepting under provisions of Section 2A isdebarred from raising any industrial disputes . The disputes are mainly raised by the Union for their workman. These unions inspite of receiving notices did not care to appear before the Court for the interest of the workman and as a result they have been deprived of getting any justice . Until and unless the attitude of the union is changed I consider that this uncalled for situation will persist. Definitely it is the duty of the Court to dispose of the reference on merit but it depends on the cooperation of bothsides . Here the record will clearly expose that sufficient opportunities had been given to the workman/union but yielded no result. This attitude shows clearly that the workman side is not interested to proceed with the hearing ofthe case for disposal on merit .

ORDER

Under the facts and circumstances, 1 also do not find any sufficient reason to drag on the case for an indefinitely period. Accordingly as there is no scope to dispose of the reference in question on merit, the same is closed.

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1)(d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/51 /98- IR (C -I ) dated, the 29th January, 1999.

3477 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2003 /वैशाख 13, 1925

SCHEDULE

नई दिल्ली, 4 अप्रैल, 2003

"Whether the demand of the union for regularisation of S/Sri Baiju Bhuiya, Bhola Turi , Prem Kumar Prasad andRamdeoRam as Short Firer Mazdoor, Trammer, Short Firer helper and Trammer respectively from 1996 is proper and justified? If so , to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled ?"

का. आ. 1348.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को.को.लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- II, धनबाद के पंचाट संदर्भ संख्या 56/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को3-4-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/466/2000- आई. आर. ( सी-1 ) ]

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 4th April, 2003

S.O. 1348. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 56/2001 ) oftheCentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal- II, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation the management of M/s . BCCL and their workmen , was receivedby the Central Government on 3-4-2003 .

[No. L- 20012/466/2000- IR(C- I) ]

S.S. GUPTA , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT:

SHRI B. BISWAS , PresidingOffiett

Inthe matter ofan Industrial Displite under Section 10(1 )(d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 .

Reference No. 56 of 2001

PARTIES

: Employers in relation to the Management ofM/ s . BCCL and their workman .

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the

workman

: None

On behalf of the

: Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate

employers

State : Jharkhand

Coal

Industry

Dated, Dhanbad , the 20th March , 2003 .

ORDER

2. In this reference neither the concerned workman nor his representative appeared before this Tribunal . However, only the management through made their appearance also have failed to submit their statement . It is seen from the record that the instant reference was received bythisTribunal on 9-3-01 and since then it is pending for disposal . Registered notices were also issued to the workman but inspite of the issuance of notices the workman side has failed to turn up . In terms of Rule 10B of the I.D. Central Rules, 1957 submission of W.S. by the concerned workman within 15 days is a mandatory one . The concemed workman not only violated the said provision of the Rules but also did not consider necessary to give any response to the notices issued by this Tribunal . In natural course the question which will arise is what will be the fate ofthe reference made by the Ministry of its disposal . The reference is made on the basis of dispute raised by the concerned workman/ union . Naturally responsibility rests with the concerned workman/ union to assist the Court to dispose of the reference in issue on merit . In view of the decision reported in 2002 (94) FLR 624 it will not be just and proper to pass 'No dispute ' Award when both the parties remain absent. There is also no scope to answer the reference on merit in absence of any W.S. and available documents.There is no dispute to hold that when any reference is made it is expected to be disposed of on merit butwhen the parties do not take any step or do not consider even to file W.S. such expectationto dispose of the reference on merit comes to an end. It is not expected that for years together the Court will persue the matter suo moto with the expectations for appearancepearance of the parties inspite of issuance of registered notices . As per I.D. Act the workman excepting under provisions of Section 2A is debarred from raising any industrial dispute . The disputes are mainly raised by the Union for their workmen . These Unions inspite of receiving notices do not care to appear before the Court for the interest of the workman and as a result they have been deprived of getting any justice . Until and unless the attitude of the Union is changed I consider that thisuncalled for situation will persist. Definitely it is the duty of theCourt to dispose of the reference on merit but itdepends on the cooperation on both sides . Here the recordwill clearly expose that sufficient opportunities had been given to the parties but yielded no result . This attitude shows clearly that the parties are not interested to proceed with the hearing of the case for disposal on merit.

TheGovt . of India, Ministry of Labour , in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 )( d) of the I.D. Act. , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/466/ 2000 (C- I) , dated the 19th February, 2001 .

115491/03-11 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

3478

Dated, Dhanbad, the 20th March , 2003.

ORDER

Inview ofthe facts and circumstances , I also do not find any sufficient reason to drag on the case for an indefinitely period. Accordingly as there is no scope to dispose ofthe reference in question on merit, the same is closed.

B.BISWAS, Presiding Officer

The Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour , in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1 )(d) of the I.D. Act. , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 20012/6/ 97-IR(Coal-I) , dated the 20th/27th February , 1998.

नई दिल्ली, 4 अप्रैल , 2003

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action ofthe management of Nichitpur Colliery ofM/s . BCCL in dismissing the services of Shri . B. Mahadeo Bhuiya S/o Shri Soman Bhuia, Miner/Loader of Nichitpur colliery w.e.f. 12-10-89 is justified? Ifnot, what relief the concerned workman isentitled?"

का. आ. 1349.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को.लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- II , धनबाद के ( पंचाट संदर्भ संख्या 26/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-4-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/6/97- आई. आर. (सी-1 ) ]

एस.एस. गुप्ता , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 4th April, 2003

S.O. 1349.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 26/98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- II , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 3-4-2003.

[No. L-20012/6/97- IR(C- I) ] S.S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD PRESENT :

SHRI B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer

Inthe matter ofan Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947.

Reference No. 26 of 1998

PARTIES

Management ofNichitpur

: Employers in relation to the Colliery ofM/ s . BCCL

and their workman .

APPEARANCES:

2. In this reference neither the concerned workman nor his representative appeared before this Tribunal . However, only the hagement made their appearance in it. It is seen from the record that the instant reference was received by this Tribunal on 16-3-98 and since then it is pending for disposal. Registered notices were also issued, to the workman but inspite of the issuance of notices the workman side has failed to turn up . In terms of Rule 10B of the I.D. Central Rules , 1957 submission of W.S. by the concerned workman within 15 days is a mandatory one . The concerned workman not only violated the said provision of the Rules but also did not consider necessary togive any response to the notices issued by this Tribunal. Innatural coursethe question which will arise is what will be the fate of reference made by the Ministry of its disposal . The reference is made on the basis of dispute raised by the concerned workman/union . Naturally responsibility rests with the concerned workman/ union to assist the Court to dispose of the reference in issue on merit . In view ofthe decision reported in 2002 (94) FLR 624 . itwill not be just and proper to pass ' No dispute ' Award when both the parties remain absent . There is also no scope to answer the reference on merit in absence ofany W.S. and available documents . There is no dispute to hold that when any reference is made it is expected to be disposed of on merit but when the parties do not take any step or do not consider even to file W.S. such expectation todispose ofthe reference on merit comes to an end. It is not expected that for years together the Court will persue the matter suo moto with the expectations for appearance of the parties inspite of inssuance of registered notices . Asper 1.D. Act the workman excepting under provisions ofSection 2A is debarred from raising any industrial dispute.

Onbehalf of the

: None .

workman

Onbehalf ofthe

: Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate

employers

: Jharkhand

State

The disputes are mainly raised by the Union for their workmen . TheseUnions inspite ofreceiving notices do not care to appear before the Court for the interest of the workman and as a result they have been deprived of getting any justice . Until and unless the attitude of the Union is changed 1 consider that this uncalled for situation will persist. Definitely it is the duty ofthe Court to dispose of the reference on merit : Coal

Industry [भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

3479

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3, 2003/वैशाख 13, 1925

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the Shri D.Mukherjee, Secretary

workman

: B.C.K.U.

Onbehalf ofthe : None .

but it depends on the cooperation on both sides . Here the recordwill clearly expose that sufficient opportunities had been given to the parties but yielded no result. This attitude shows clearly that the parties are not interested to proceed. with the hearing of the case for disposal onmerit.

employers

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 20th March , 2003.

Inview ofthe facts and circumstances , I also do not find any sufficient reason to drag on the case for an indefinitely period. Accordingly as there is no scope to dispose of the reference in question on merit, the same is closed.

AWARD

B.BISWAS, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 4 अप्रैल, 2003

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1 )( d) of the 1.D. Act , 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 20012/485/94-1R ( Coal - I ), dated the 3rd November, 1995.

SCHEDULE

का. आ. 1350.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को.को.लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- 11 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 154/95 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जोकेन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-4-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं . एल-20012/485/94-आई. आर. ( सी-1 ) ]

एस.एस.. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 4th April, 2003

"Whether the Union's demand for regularisationby themanagement of Moonidih Project of M/ s . BCCL of S/Shri Nakul Chandra Mahto and Anand Kumar Das as Attendance Clerk and Lamp Issue Clerk respectively isjustified? If so , to what relief are the workmen entitled and from whichdate ? "

2. The case of the concerned workman according to W. Statement submitted by the sponsoring Union on their behalf in brief is as follows :-

S.O. 1350.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 154/95) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- II, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workmen, which was receivedbythe Central Government on 3-4-2003 .

[No. L-20012/485/94- IR (C- I)]

S.S. GUPTA , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. II) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

SHRI B. BISWAS , PresidingOfficer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947.

Reference No. 154 of 1995

PARTIES

: Employers in relation to the Management ofMoonidih Project of M/ s . BCCL and their workinan .

They submitted that the concerned workmen Nakul Ch . Mahato and Anand Kumar Das have been working asAttendance Clerk and Lamp Issue Clerk respectively under the management since long period against permanent vacancy under direct control and supervision of the management . The job which they performed are permanent in nature and they put 190/ 240 days attendance in each calendar year . They submitted that as per Wage Board Recommendation the atteridance clerk and Cap Lamp Issue Clerk are entitled to get clerical grade II scale at the initial stage but the management has been paying wages to them asper category 1 illegally and arbitrarily. Accordingly, the concerned workmen and also the union submitted representation to the management for their regularisation in the respective job and for wages as per Wage Board recommendation and also as per N.Ç.W.A. but they did not consider the prayer in question till date. On the contrary they threatended the concerned workmen to remove them from their respective job . As a result they raised an Industrial Dispute beforethe ALC( C) for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for award.

[PART SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2003/VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

3480

clerical job but that did not create any right to provide regular clerical job or to regularise them in clerical post violating circular No. 34 dt. 17-7-84 issued by JBCСІ .

3. Accordingly, the sponsoring union submitted prayer to pass award directing the management ofMoonidih Project to regularise the concerned workmen in their respective job with consequential relief.

Inview ofthe facts and circumstances stated above management submitted that the demand of the sponsoring union for regularisation of the concerned workman as Attendance Clerk and Lamp Issue clerk is without any merit and for which there is no scope to accept the same. Accordingly they submitted prayer to pass award rejecting the claim of the concerned workmen .

5. The points to be decided in this reference are:--

"Whether the Union's demand for regularisation by the management ofMoonidih Project ofM/ s . BCCL ofS /Shri Nakul Chandra Mahato and Anand Kumar Dasas Attendance Clerk and Lamp Issue Clerk respectively is justified? If so , to what relief are the workmen entitled and from which date" ?

DECISION WITH REASONS

6. It is seen from the record that to substantiate the claim in question the sponsoring Union have examined two witnesses while the management examined one witness in support of their claim . Considering the evidence of both sides and also considering the materials on record I find nodispute tohold that the concemed workmen were initially appointed as piece rated workers by the management and they were deployed in the underground of the mines to work as miner / loader , though it transpires that the sponsoring union omitted to disclose this fact in the W.S. submitted by them on their behalf. The sponsoring union also in the written statement did not mention from which year and month the concerned workmen started working as lamp issue clerk and attendance clerk. The sponsoring union was also silent if the concemed workmen started working in the said posts being apppointed by the management. They did not disclose how piece rated workers who were appointed as minors/ loaders were posted as lamp issue clerk and attendance clerk. The sponsoring union also in course of hearing have failed to produce any letter of appointment issued by the management in favour ofthe concerned workman to work as Lamp Issue Clerk and attendance clerk .

7. It is the contention of the sponsoring union that since long the concerned workmen are discharging their duties as Lamp Issue clerk and Attendance clerk but inspite ofdischarging their duties as such the management have refused to pay wages as per Clerk Gr . II according to the provision of N.C.W.A. They submitted that since long they are working against permanent vacancies and put their attendance for more than 190/240 days in each calendar year. They submitted that the management refused to regularise them in the post of Lamp Issue clerk and 4. The management on the contrary after filing W.C. -cum-rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the sponsoring union asserted in the W.S. onbehalf ofthe concerned workmen. They submitted thatthe concerned workmen were holding the substantive posts of piece rated workers and were deputed to work as miner/ loader inside the coal mine . Concerned workman Nakul Chandra Mahato , whose token No. 7259 received injury on 10-3-89 and remained on sick leave for some period. He was finnally examined by the Medical Board at Central Hospital Dhanbad on 22-3-90 and declared fit for his original job ofminer/ loader. Similarly another concerned workman i.e. Anand Kumar Das whose token No. is 7175 got injury on 30-11-88 and for which he remained on sick leave and finally on 14-12-89 he was declared medically fit by the Medical Board for taking up his job as Miner/loader . Thereafter, the said two workmen approached the management for providing light job on the surface as they were having some psycological effect for working inside the mine . They submitted that in view of their approach the local management considering their mental situation allowed them to work as general mazdoor on light job on the surface and in that connection they were attachedto lamp room and attendant cabin . At that time it was made clear that they would get category I wages for performing light duties of general mazdoors as they themselves were approaching for the jobs and were expressing their inability to perform the job of miners /loaders becuase of fear psychosis. They submitted that the concerned workmen were never authorised to deputed to work as a clerk by the competent authority and for which they are debarred from Paiming their regularisation as clerk. They disclosed that the purpose of maintaining uniform policy J.B.C.C.I. ts issued circular No. 34dt . 12-2-84 providing selection and promotion of persons in the clerical cadre . As per the aforesaid circular the first entry in the clerical cadre can be made through selection test from amongst all the eligible candidates of a particular area. As per the said circular equal opportunity should be given to all such persons who have got three years of experience in the company to appear before the selection test for their selection in the clerical cadre as clerk Gr . III . The niinimum qualification prescribed was matriculation or equivalent examination from any recognised Board of Examination . They submitted that no permanent vacancy was created for the post of Lamp Clerk or attendance clerk and the concerned workmen never appeared before any selection committee for their absorption in the clerical cadre. It is the management who gave chance to them under special circumstances to learn 3481 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2003 /वैशाख 13 , 1925

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

any cogent documents to show that circular No. 34 dt . 17-7-84 is not applicable in the matter of regularisation of the service ofthe concerned workmen in the clerical grade. No proof is forthcoming on the part of the sponsoring union that the management ignored and refused to regularise the concerned workmen in Clerk Gr . II inspite of possessing requisite academic qualification as per Circular No. 34 dt. 17-7-84 issued by J.B.C.C.I.

8. It is the contention of the sponsoring union that theconcernedworkman worked more than 190/240 days in each year as Lamp Issue Clerk and Attendance clerk against permanent vacancy and for which the management cannot avoid their responsibility to regularise them as Lamp Issue clerk andAttendance clerk . No evidence is forthcoming to theeffect that the post of Lamp Issue clerk and Attendance clerk remained vacant where the concerned workman were deployed. Question of regularisation comes in if it is established that there is regular vacancy . Apart from this factthe most important aspect which is to be considered is whether the instructions given in Circular No. 34 dt . 17-7-84 in the matter of appointment of clerks from the workmen can be ignored merely because of the fact that the concerned workman discharged their duties as Lamp Issue clerk and Attendance clerk for more than 190/240 in each year. The concerned workmen are still in service. As such questions of issuance of notice U/S . 25F did not arise . As in the instant case the concerned workmen were not retrenched or dismissed from service question of regularisation of their service for non - compliance of the provision of Section 25F does not arise . Now the question is if a workman accrues any right to get his service regularised in particular post can be considered because ofthe fact that he worked in the said post for more than 190/240 days in a year ignoring the standing provision of N.C.W.A. There is no dispute to hold that N.C.W.A. and JBCCI circulars are very much biding upon the employees and employers of the industry . the management referring circular No. 34 dt . 17-7-84 has clealry mentioned how the clerks can be recruited by the management. It is not the case of the sponsoring union that the instructions given in the said circular is not required to be followed as the same are not binding . As such question of regularisation ofthe services of the concerned workman as they worked for more than 190/240 days in a year cannot be enforced superseding the clear instruction of JBCCI .

8. Considering the evidence ofrecord 1 find no dispute to hold that these two workmen were posted in the Lamp Issue department and attendance department as General Mazdoor. It is evidence that in course of discharging their duties they performed some works like that of the clerks but for such reason is there any scope to say they have accrued right to place demand for regularisation of their Attendance Clerk Gr . II inspite of submitting representations . On the contrary from the submissions of the management I find quite a different picture . They submitted that concerned workman Nakul Ch . Mahato whose token No. is 7259 and Anand Kumar Das whose token No. is 7175 met accident on 10-3-89 and 30-11-88 respectively and sustained injuries to their persons and for which they went on sick leave. Thereafter on 22-3-90 . saidNakul Ch . Mahato appeared before the Medical Board while Anand Kumar Das appeared there on 14-12-89 and they were declared medically fit to resume their original duties. The management further submitted that as fear psychosis was developed to work in the underground they approached the management to provide them with light job and accepting their approach they were posted in the said branches as category I Mazdoor . However, for their -future benefit they were allowed to learn clerical jobs by the local management . WW- I though in course of his examination in chief denied the fact of sustaining injury by them admitted the same in course of his cross -examination . They did not disclose when they sustained such injury to their persons . However , from the evidence of MW- I a clear picture has come out when they sustained injury to their person and this fact was not challenged by the sponsoring union when the said witness was cross -examined. However , considering the evidence of WW- 1 , WW-2 and MW- I I find no dispute to hold that as piece rated miner /loader they sustained their injuries and for which they remained on sick leave for a long period. WW- I or WW - 2 during evidence however , denied the fact that on being their approach they were posted in Lamp Issue department and attendance department as piece rated mazdoor . They submitted that the management appointed them as Lamp Issue Clerk and Attendance clerk and in support of such claim WW- I agreed to submit this appointment letter . It is seen that the sponsoring Uniơn in course of hearing has failed to produce any such appointment letter to substantiate their claim in question . However , considering the submission of berth sides I find no dispute to hold that the workmen were posted in the said two branches after they were declared medically fit by the Medical Board in view ofthe injuries sustained by them due to accident. The management relying on circular No. 34 dt . 17-7-84 has pointed out how a clerk is appointed under the management. They submitted that as per the said circular the posting in the clerical cadre can be made by holding selection test from amongst all the eligible candidates of a particular area having three years experience in the company and the minimum qualification for such appearance is Matriculation, or equivalent. They submitted that violating the said circular in question there is no scope to issue any letter of appointment to any person in the clerical grade. In course of hearing the sponsoring Union have failed to produce 3482

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003/VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

service as clerk ignoring the specific instruction of J.B.C.C.I. which came into existence under Circular No. 34 dt. 17.7.84. The sponsoring union in course of hearing have failed to establish that a general Mazdoor accrues right to get his service regularised in the post of clerk taking the plea that they were allowed to perform some duties as clerk . It is seen that management did not issue any order asking the concerned workman to perform the duties of Lamp Issue clerk and attendance clerk particularly when it is evident thatLamp Issue clerk and attendance clerk were physically very much in existence officiallyto perform their duties .As such there was no question of performing such duties by the workman. They being general mazdoor posted there andmight perform some duties as clerk unofficially which never created any right to place such claim .

[PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2 AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

SHRI B. BISWAS, PRESIDING OFFICER Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 .

Reference No. 146 of 2000

PARTIES

: Employers in relation to the Management of Regional Workshop Mugma ofM/s . ECL and their workman .

APPEARANCES

Onbehalf of the

workman

In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above 1 hold that the sponsoring union have failed to establish their claim and for which they are not entitled to getanyrelief.

In the result, the following Award is rendered :-

: None .

Onbehalf ofthe

: None

employers

"The Union ' s demand for regularisation by the management of Moonidih Project ofM/s. BCCL of S/ Shri Nakul Chandra Mahato and Anand Kumar Das as Attendance clerk and Lamp Issue Clerk respectively is notjustified . Consequently , the concerned workmen are not entitled to get any relief. "

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 4 अप्रैल, 2003

का. आ. 1351.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ई ० सी ० एल ० के प्रबंधतंत्रके संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- II , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 146/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-04-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं . एल -20012/270/2000- आई. आर. ( सी-1 ) ]

एस.एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 4th April,2003

S.O. 1351. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 146/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- II, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ECL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 3-04-2003 .

[No. L- 20012/270/2000- IR (C- I) ] S.S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

State

: Jharkhand

: Coal .

Industry

Dated, Dhanbad, the 21st March , 2003 .

ORDER

TheGovt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1 )(d) of the I.D. Act. , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/270/ 2000(C- 1 ), dated the 25th October, 2000 .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the refusal of the management of Regional Workshop Mugma of M/s . ECL to regularise the service ofSri C. B. Singh as Clerk is fair and justified? Ifnot, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from what date? "

2. In this reference neither the concerned workman nor his representative appeared. However, the management side appeared through their authorised representative and filed authorisation in this reference before this Tribunal did not submitting any workman statements . It is seen from the record that the instant reference was received by this Tribunal on 24-11-2000 and since then it is pending for disposal . Subsequently the concerned workman failed to appear.Accordingly, registered notices were issued toboth the workman side as well as the management but inspite of the issuance of notices they failed to appear before this Tribunal. They also did not even respond to the notices issued by this Tribunal . In natural course the question will arise what will be the fate of the reference made by the Ministry for its disposal . The reference is made on the [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2003/वैशाख 13, 1925

3483 between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 3-4-2003 .

[No. L-20012/56/99 - IR (C- I ) ] S.S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ( No. 2) AT DHANBAD PRESENT:

Shri B. Biswas, PresidingOfficer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1 )(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 .

Reference No. 248 of 1999

PARTIES

: Employers in relation to the

Management of Katras Project ofM/ s . BCCL and their workman,

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the

workman

: Shri S.K. Prasad , Advocate .

Onbehalf ofthe

: None

employers

basis ofdispute raised by the concerned workman/union . Naturally responsibility rests with the concerned workman/ union to assist the Court to dipose of the reference in issue onmerit. In view ofthe decision reported in 2002 (94) FLR 624 it will not bejust and proper to pass 'No dispute'Award whenboth parties remain absent. There is also no scope to answer the reference on merit in absence of any W.S. and available documents. There is no dispute to hold that when any reference is made it is expected to be disposed of onmerit but when the parties do not take any step or do not consider even to file W.S./documents such expectation todispose of the reference on merit comes to an end. It is not expected that for years together the Court, will persue the matter suo moto with the expectations for appearance ofthe workman inspite of issuance of registered notices . As per I.D. Act the workman excepting under provisions ofSection 2A is debarred from raising any industrial dispute . The disputes are mainly raised by the Union for their workmen . These unions inspite of receiving notices did not care to appear before the Court for the interest of the workman and as result they have been deprived of getting any justice. Until and unless the attitude of the union is changed I consider that this uncalled for situation will persist. Definitely it is the duty of the Court to dispose of the reference on merit but it depends on the cooperation of both sides. Here the record will clearly expose that sufficient opportunities had been given to the workman/union but yielded no result. This attitude shows.clearly that the workman side is not interested to proceed with the hearing ofthe case for disposal on merit .

Under the facts and cirucumstances , I also do not find any sufficient reason to drag on the case for an indefinite period. Accordingly as there is no scope to dispose of the reference in question on merit, the same is closed.

B. BISWAS , PresidingOfficer.

नई दिल्ली, 4 अप्रैल, 2003

का. आ. 1352.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा० को० को० लि० के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- II , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 248/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-04-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-20012/56/99- आई. आर. (सी-1 ) ] एस.एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th April , 2003

S.O. 1352. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 248/99) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - II , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal .

Dated, Dhanbad, the 21st March , 2003.

AWARD

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour , in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1) ( d) of the I.D. Act 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 20012/56/ 99 (C- I ), dated the 4th June, 1999 .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Katras Project of M /s . BCCL in denying the monetary compensation to Smt . Chourasi Kamin W/o . Late Brihaspat Bhuia under clause 9.5.0 ( 11) of NCWA- V whereas employment under 10.4.2 of NCWA- 2 had already been denial is justified ? If not to what relief Smt. Chourasi Kamin is entitled ?"

2. In course of hearing of the instant reference Shri S.K. Prasad, learned Advocate for the workman submitted to pass a ' No dispute ' Award in this reference as the concerned workman involved in the dispute is not willing to proceed with it. None appeared for the management . Heard the learned Advocate for the workman . Since the concerned workman involved in the dispute is not willing [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

3484

Onbehalf ofthe

: Shri H. Nath, Advocate .

employers

Industry:Coal.

State: Jharkhand

Dated, Dhanbad, the 13th March , 2003 .

toproceedwith the instant reference , there is no reason to dragon the same. Under such circumstances , a ' No dispute ' Award is rendered and the reference is disposed of on the, basis of ' No dispute ' Award presuming non - existence of any industrial dispute between the parties , presently.

AWARD

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer .

नई दिल्ली, 4 अप्रैल , 2003

TheGovt . of India, Ministry of Labour , in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1 )(d) of the I.D. Act. , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 20012 /552/ 98(C-I), dated the 17th May, 1999.

SCHEDULE

का. आ. 1353.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा ० को० को० लि० के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- II , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 222/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-4-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/552/98- आई. आर. ( सी-1 ) ]

" KYA. BCCL AMLABAD PROJECT KE PRABANDHAK DWARA DATED 30-8-95 SE SHRI RAMESHWAR MAHATO , KARMAKAR KA NAAM ' BADLI KI SUCHI MEN DALA JANA UCHIT HAI ? YADI NAHIN, TO KARMAKAR KIS RAHAT KE PATRA HAIN ? "

एस.एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 4th April, 2003

S.O. 1353. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 222/99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- II, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Governmenton 3-4-2003 .

[No. L-20012/552/98 - IR (C- I ) ] S.S. GUPTA , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

2. In this reference both the parties appeared and filed their respective W.S. Subsequently, when the case was fixed for filing document etc. Shri S.C. Gaur , learned Advocate for the workman by filing a petition submitted before this Tribunal to pass a ' No dispute ' Award in this reference as the concerned workman involved in the instant dispute is not interested to proceed with the hearing of the case . No objection was raised on the side of the management if the instant reference is disposed of on the basis of'No dispute ' Award. Perused the petition and also heard both sides . Since the concerned workan involved in the instant reference is not interested to proceed with the hearing of this reference case , there is no reason to keep the same alive . Under such circumstances , a ' No dispute ' Award isrendered and the reference case is disposed of on the basis of 'No dispute ' Award presuming non - existence of any industrial dispute between the parties .

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer PRESENT:

नई दिल्ली , 4 अप्रैल , 2003

SHri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 .

Reference No. 222 of 1999

का. आ. 1354.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा० को० को० लि० के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- II , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 95/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-4-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था । PARTIES

[सं. एल-20012/115/2000- आई. आर. (सी-1 ) ] : Employers in relation to the Management of Amlabad Colliery of M/s . BCCL and their

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव workman.

New Delhi, the 4th April , 2003 APPEARANCES:

Onbehalf of the

S.O. 1354. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central : Shri S.C. Gaur, Advocate .

workman 3485 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3, 2003/वैशाख 13, 1925

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 95/2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- II , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute betweenthe employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 3-04-2003 .

[No. L-20012/ 115/2000-IR(C- 1) ]

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT:

Shri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrin Dispute under Section 10(1 )(d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 .

Reference No. 95 of 2000

PARTIES

: Employers in relation to the Management of M/ s . BCCL and their workman .

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf ofthe workman

: None .

: Shri U. N. Lall , Advocate .

Onbehalf of the employers

State : Tharkhand : Industry: Coal .

Dated, Dhanbad, the 21st March, 2003 .

ORDER

to the workmanside but inspite of the issuance of notices theworkmanside has failed to turn up . In terms of Rule B of the I. D. Central Rules , 1957 submission of W. S. by the concernedworkman/ union within 15 days is a mandatory one . The concerned workman/union not only violated the said provision of the Rules but also did not consider necessary to give any response to the notices issued by this Tribunal . In natural course the question which will arise is what will be the fate ofthe reference is made by the Ministry for its disposal . The reference is made on th basis ofdispute raised by the concerned workman/union . Naturally responsibility rests with the concerned workman/ unin' to assist the Court to dispose of the reference in issue on merit . In view of the decision reported in 2002(94) FLR 634 it will not be just and proper to pass ' No dispute ' Awardwhen both the parties remain absent . There is also no scope to answer the reference on merit in absence of any W.S. and available documents . There is no dispute to hold that when any reference is made it is expected to be disposed of on merit but when the parties do not take any stepordo not consieven to file W.S. such expectation to dispose or the reference on merit comes to an end. It is not expected that for years together the Court will persue the matter suo moto with the expectations for appearance ofthe parties inspite of issuance of registered notices . As per I.D. Act the workman , excepting under provisions of Section 2A is doomed from raising any industrial dispute. The disputes are mainly raised by the Union for their workmen . These unions inspite of ving notices do not care to appear before the Court for the interest of the workman and as a result they have been deprived ofgetting any justice . Until and unless the attitude of the union is changed I consider that this uncalled for situation will persist . Definitely it is the duty of the Court to dispose of the reference on merit but it depends on the cooperation of both sides. Here the record will clearly expose that sufficient opportunities had been given to the parties but yielded no result . This attitude shows clearly that the parties are not interested to proceed with the hearing of the case for disposal onmerit.

TheGovt. of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute tothis Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/ 115/ 2000dated the 14th September, 2000.

SCHEDULE

Inview of the facts and circumstances , I also do not find any sufficient reason to drag on the case for an indefinite period . Accordingly as there is no scope to dispose of the reference in question on merit , the same is closed.

"Whether the demand of the Union to promote Sri Bacha Ram to the post of Fitter is proper and justified ? If so , to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from what date ?"

B. BISWAS, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 4 अप्रैल , 2003 2. In this reference neither the concerned workman nor his representative appeared before this Tribunal . However, only the management made their appearance in it . It is seen from the record that the instant reference was received by this Tribunal on 29-9-2000 and since then it is pending for disposal . Registered notices were also issued

का. आ. 1355.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा० को० को० लि० के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक 115491/03-12 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

3486

Ifnot, to what reliefthe concerned workman is entitled to ?"

अधिकरण- II , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 26/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-04-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/469/97-आई. आर. ( सी-1 ) ]

एस. एसः गुप्ता , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 4th April , 2003

S.O. 1355. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 26/99) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- II , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-04-2003 .

i [No. L-20012/469/97 - IR (C - 1 ) ] S. S. GUPTA , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2 ) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

SHRI B. Biswas , PresidingOfficer

Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 .

Reference No. 26 of 1999

PARTIES

: Employers in relation to the Management ofGovindpur Area No. III ofM/ s . BCCL and their workman .

APPEARANCES :

: None .

On behalf of the workman

: None

Onbehalf of the employers

Industry: Coal .

State : Jharkhand :

Dated , Dhanbad , the 21st March , 2003.

ORDER

2. In this reference the concerned workman though appeared through his representative did not subrnit any written statement inspite ofgiving sufficient opportunities. The management also did not appear. It is seen from the record that the instant reference was received by this Tribunal on 21-1-1999 and since than it is pending for disposal . Registered notices and show cause notices were issued to the both sides but inspite of the issuance of notices they failed to turn up . In term of Rule 10B of the I.D. Central Rules , 1957 submission of W.S. by the concerned workman within 15 days is a mandatory one. The concerned workman not only violated the said provision of the Rules but also did not consider necessary to give any response to the notices issued by this Tribunal. In natural course the question which will arise is what will be the fate of the reference made by the Ministry for its disposal . The reference is made on the basis of dispute raised by the concerned workman/union . Naturally. responsibility rests with the concerned workman/unión to assist the Courtto dispose of the reference in issue on merit . In view of the decision reported in 2002 (94) FLR 624 it will not be just and proper to pass 'No' dispute ' Award when both the parties rermain absent . There is also no scope to answer the reference on merit in absence of any W.S. and available documents . There is no dispute to hold that when any reference is made it is expected to be disposed of on merit butwhen the parties do not take any step or do not consider even to file W.S. such expectation to dispose ofthe reference on merit comes to an end. It is not expected that for years together the Court will persue the matter suo moto with the expectations for appearance of the workman inspite of ssuance ofregistered notices . As per I.D. Act the workmen excepting under provisions of Section 2A is debarred from raising any industrial dispute. The disputes are mainly raised by the Union for their workmen . These unions inspite ofreceiving notices did not care to appear before the Court for the interest of the workman and as a result they have been deprived ofgetting any justice . Until and unless the attitude of the union is changed I consider that this uncalled for situation will persist . Definitely it is the duty of the Courtto dispose of the reference on merit but it depends onthe cooperation ofboth sides . Here the record will clearly expose that sufficient opportunities had been given to the workman/union but yielded no result . This attitude shows clearly that the workman side is not interested to proceed with the hearing of the case for disposal on merit.

The Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise ofthepowers conferred on them under Section 10( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/469/ 97-IR (C- 1 ) , dated the 8th January , 1999 .

SCHEDULE

Under the facts and circumstances , I also do not find any sufficient reason to drag on the case for an indefinite period.Accordingly as there is no scope to dispose of the reference in question on merit , the same is closed .

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer "Whether the action of the management ofGovindpur Area III of M/ s . BCCL dismissing Sh. Nepal Manjhi , Trainmer from services of the company is justified ?

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

3487 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3, 2003/वैशाख 13 , 1925

नई दिल्ली, 4 अप्रैल , 2003

not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

का. आ. 1356.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947. का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार हीरालाल एण्ड कम्पनी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- II , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 180/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-4-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/376/1997- आई.आर. ( सी. 1 ) ]

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 4th April, 2003

S.O. 1356. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.180/98 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - II , Dhanbad now as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Hiralal and Company and their workman, which was received by the Centrai Government on 3-4-2003 .

[No. L -20012/376/ 1997 - IR(C- 1 ) ]

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947

Reference No. 180 of 1998

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management ofM/ s . Hiralal &Company, Ranchi , and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

None

Onbehalf ofthe workman :

Onbehalf of the employers : None

State : Jharkhand .

Industry: Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 21st March , 2003

ORDER

2. In this reference neither the concerned workman nor his representative appeared. The management side also did not appear before this Tribunal . It is seen from the record that the instant reference was received by this Tribunal on 14-9-98 and since then it is pending for disposal . Registered notices and show cause notices were issued to the workman /union as well as to the management but inspite of the issuance of notices they failed to turn up. In terms of Rule 10B of the I.D. Central Rules , 1957 submission of W.S. by the concerned workman within 15 days is a mandatory one . The concerned workman not only violated the said provision of the Rules but also did not consider necessary to give any response to the notices issued by this Tribunal . In natural course the question which will arise is what will be the fate of the reference made by the Ministry for its disposal . The reference is made on the basis of dispute raised by the concerned workman/union . Naturally responsibility rests with the concerned workman/ union to assist the court to dispose ofthe reference in issue on merit . In view of the decision reported in 2002 ( 94) FLR 624 it will not be just and proper to pass ' No dispute ' Award when both the parties remain absent . There is also no scope to answer the reference on merit in absence of any W.S. and available documents . There is no dispute to hold that when any reference is made it is expected to be disposed of on merit but when the parties do not take any step or do not consider even to file W.S. such expectation to dispose of the reference on merit comes to an end . It is not expected that for years together the Court will persue the matter suo moto with theexpectations for appearance of the workman inspite of issuance of registered notices . As per 1.D. Act the workmen excepting uner provisions of Section 2A is debarred from raising any industrial disputes . The disputes are mainly raised by the Union for their workman . These unions inspite of receiving notices do no are to appear before the Court for the interest of the workman and as a result they have been deprived of getting any justice . Until and unless the attitude of the union is changed 1 consider that this uncalled for situation will persist . Definitely it is the duty ofthe Court to dispose of the reference on merit but it depends on the cooperation of both sides . Here the record will clearly expose that sufficient opportunities had

been given to the workman/unic .: but yielded no result . This attitude shows clearly that the workman side is not interested to proceed with the hearing of the case for disposal onmerit .

The Government of India Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1)( d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L -20012/376/97 - IR (C-I ) dated, the 27th August, 1998.

SCHEDULE

Under the facts and circumstances , I also do not find any sufficient reason to drag on the case for an indefinite period. Accordingly as there is no scope to dispose of the reference in question on merit , the same is closed.

"Whether the action of the management of M/s . Hiralal and Company in terminating the services of Shri Shambhu Lal, Driver is proper and justified ? If

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003/VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

3488

नई दिल्ली, 4 अप्रैल , 2003

justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

का. आ. 1357.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- II, धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 29/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-4-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/473/97- आई.आर. (सी-1 ) ]

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 4th April , 2003

S.O. 1357.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 29/99 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - II , Dhanbad now as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ECL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-4-2003.

[No. L-20012/473/97 - IR (C- 1 )]

S. S. GUPTA , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, DHANBAD

PRESENT: Shri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industriai Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .

Reference No. 29 of 1999

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of Shyampur 'B ' Colliery of E.C.L. and their workman..

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf ofthe workman : None .

Shri B. M. Prasad ,

Onbehalf of the employers :

Advocate .

Industry: Coal.

State : Jharkhand.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 20th March, 2003

ORDER

2. In this reference neither the concerned workman nor his representative appeared before this Tribunal . However, only the management made their appearance in it. It is seen from the record that the instant reference was received by this Tribunal on 21-1-99 and since then it is pending for disposal . Registered notices were also issued to the workman but inspite of the issuance of notices the workman sidehas failed to turn up. In terms ofRule 10B of the I.D. Central Rules , 1957 submission of W.S. by the concerned workman within 15 days is a mandatory one . The concerned workman not only violated the said provision ofthe Rules but also did not consider necessary to give any response to the notices issued by this Tribunal. In natural course the question which will arise is whatwill be the fate ofthe reference made by the Ministry for its disposal . The reference is made on the basis of dispute raised by the concerned workman/ union, Naturally. responsibility rests with the concerned workman/union to assist the court to dispose of the reference in issue on merit. Inview ofthe decision reported in 2002 (94) FLR 624 itwill not be just and proper to pass ' No dispute ' Award when both the parties remain absent . There is also no scope to answer the reference on merit in absence of any W.S. and available documents . There is no dispute to hold thatwhen any reference is made it is expected to be disposed of on merit but when the parties do not take any step or do not consider even to file W.S. such expectation todispose ofthe reference on merit comes to an end . It is not expected that for years together the Court will persue the matter suo moto with the expectations for appearance ofthe parties inspite of issuance ofregistered notices .As per I.D. Act the workmen excepting under provisions.of Section 2A is debarred from raising any industrial dispute . The disputes are mainly raised by the Union for their workman . These unions inspite of receiving notices do not care to appear before the Court for the interest of the workman and as a result they have been deprived of getting any justice . Until and unless the attitude of the union is changed I consider that this uncalled for situation will persist. Definitely it is the duty of the Court to dispose of the reference on merit but it depends on the cooperation of both sides . Here the record will clearly expose that sufficient opportunities had been given to the parties but yielded no result. This attitude shows clearly that the parties are not interested to proceed with the hearing of the case for disposal on merit.

The Government of India Ministry of Labour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1)(d) of the 1.D. Act , 1947 has referred the following disputeto this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 20012/473/97- IR (C- I ), dated, the 8th January , 1999.

SCHEDULE

Inview of the facts and circumstances , I also do not find any sufficient reason to drag on the case for an indefinite period . Accordingly as there is no scope to dispose of the reference in question on merit, the same is closed.

"Whether the action of the management ofShyampur 'B' Colliery of E.C.L. regarding recording of age of SriBodi Mahato as 8-10-1938 in the service excerpt or not sending him to medical board as per

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer 1-1 1975 of JBCCI for determination of his age'is 3489

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 3, 2003/वैशाख 13, 1925

[भांग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल, 2003

का. आ. 1358.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आई.एन.एस. शत्वाहन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 227/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-4-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-14011/16/99- आई.आर. (डी. यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्कअधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th April , 2003

S.O. 1358.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 227/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of INS Satavahana and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 7-4-2003 .

[No. L- 14011/16/99- IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : Shri E. Ismail, Presiding Officer Dated: 30thday of January, 2003

Industrial Dispute No. 227/2002

(Old I.D. No. 6/2000 transferred from Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court, Visakhapatnam) BETWEEN

TheGeneral Secretary,

Petitioner Indian Navy Civil Employees Union , Q.No. 5-28 , Meghadripeta , Visakhapatnam -530008.

AND

1. The Commanding Officer , INS Satavahana; Naval Base , Visakhapatnam -530002.

.....Respondents 2. The Flag Officer, Commanding- in -Chief, HeadQuarters , Eastern Naval Command , Visakhapatnam-530014.

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner

Sri K. Balakrishna , Advocate

For the Respondents

SriD. Ramesh , Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 14011 / 16/99 - IR(DU) dated 14-3-2000 referred the following dispute under Section 10 (1 )(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Visakhapatnam between the management ofINS Satavahana, Visakhapatnam and their workmen . In view ofGovernment of India , Ministry ofLabour's Order No. H- 11026/ 1 /2001 - IR( C- II) dated 18-10-2001 this case has beentransferred to this Tribunal bearing No. 6/2000 . The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of INS Satavahana , Visakhapatnam in introducing 6. ( six) days a week schedule as per their order issued dated 8-9-99 and whether the demand ofthe Indian Navy Civil Employees Union , Visakhapatnam for introducing 5 days a week schedule for Civilian workmen are legal and justified? Ifnot , to what relief the concerned union is entitled ?"

The reference is re- numbered in this Tribunal as 1.D. No. 227/2002 and notices issued to the parties .

2. Inspite of several adjournments given from 8-7-2002 for evidence of the Petitioner for five adjournments including 30-1-2003 the petitioner has not turned out for the same . The petitioner has failed to produce any evidence in support of his claim . Hence , there is nothing on record to substantiate the case of the Petitioner . Therefore, the reference is ordered against the petitioner and it is held that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

Accordingly a 'Nil ' Award is passed . Transmit.

Dictated to Kum . K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronouned by me on thisthe 30th day ofJanuary , 2003 .

E. ISMAIL , Presiding Officer Appendix ofevidence

Witnesses examined for Petitioner

Witnesses examined.for Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल , 2003

का. आ. 1359.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्टः औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 15/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-4-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40012/284/2001- आई.आर. (डी. यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी 3490

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003/VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

[PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] New Delhi , the 7th April , 2003

sent to the parties to the dispute by registered post , with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 5-3-2002 to file their respective Claim Statement and Counter Statement and to prosecute this case further . Accordingly , the learned counsel on record on either side have filed their respective claim statement and counter statement and prosecuted this case further .

S.O. 1359.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.15/2002) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Chennai now as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt. of Telecom . and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Government on 7-4-2003.

[No. L-40012/284/2001 - IR (DU) ]

KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Upon perusing the Claim Statement , Counter Statement, documentary evidence let in on the side of the II Party/Management alone , the other material papers on record, after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management alone and thismatter having stood over till this date for consideration , this Tribunal has passed the following :-

AWARD

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT , CHENNAI

Monday, the 31st March , 2003

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above mentioned order of reference by the Central Government foradjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :-

PRESENT : K. KARTHIKEYAN , Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 15/2002

"Whether the termination and non - regularisation of Sri S. K. Edward Rajkumar by the Department of Telecommunications , Optical Fibre Division , Chennai - 84 is legal and justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

2.The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the I Party/Workman Sri S. K. Edward Rajkumar ( hereinafter refers to as Petitioner ) are briefly as follows :-

[ In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub -section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Workman Sri S. K. Edward Rajkumar and the Management of the Divisional Engineer , Optical Fibre Division, Department of Telecommunications ) ]

BETWEEN

Sri S. K. Edward Rajkumar : 1 Party/Workman

AND

The Divisional Engineer , Optical Fibre Division , Department ofTelecommuni- cation, Chennai .

: II Party/Management

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Workman : M/ s . P.V. S. Giridhar

Associates and S. Jeevanandham , Manjula A. Advocates .

For the Management : Sri K. RajendranCGSC

The Government of India Ministry of Labour in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub -section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , have referred the concerned industrial dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-40012/284/2001 - IR (DU) dated 29-1-2001 .

On receipt of the order of reference from the Government of India , Ministry of Labour, this case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 15/2002 and notices were

The Petitioner initially joined the Department of Telecommunications under the II Party/Management as a HeavyMotor Vehicle Driver on 22-6-99 . From the inception of his service , he has been discharging his duties in a sincere and dedicated manner and won the appreciation of his superiors . He was allotted additional work of watchman on 30-12-2000 . He was paid Rs . 85/- per day as wages generally on weekly basis. He has a blemishless record of service . He requested the department to regularise his service and also seeking payment of statuory benefits . When the Petitioner reported for work on 8-3-2001 , he was informed that his services were no inore required. He was not issued any notice assigning any reason for his termination . His services were orally terminated on 8-3-2001 . The said action of the 11 Party/ Management is arbitrary , unreasonable and violative of the principles of natural justice . Without conducting any enquiry , the Petitioner's services were terminated . It amounts to unfair labour practice . It is also in violation of Articles21 and 23 of Constitution of India . The Petitioner has been denied the benefits of ESI and Provident Fund . No retrenchment compensation nor any notice for retrenchment containing reason has been given to the Petitioner . No notice has been issued to the Central Govt . The II Party/Management employs more than 100 workmen and as such are bound by Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is an obligatory on the part of the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3, 2003/वैशाख 13, 1925

3491

counsel for the II. Party /Management advanced his arguments .

5.The point for my consideration is-

"Whether the termination and non - regularisation of Sri S.K.Edward Rajkumar by the Department of Telecommunications , Optical Fibre Division , Chennai-84 is legal and justified ? Ifnot to what relief theworkman is entitled ?"

Point:-

II Party/Management to issue three months notice in writing to the workmen indicating the reasons for retrenchment or pay wages for the period of notice in lieu ofsuch notice and to obtain prior permission of the Central Govt. before retrenching the Petitioner. Therefore , the termination of the Petitioner's services by the II Party/ Management is arbitrary, unlawful and violative of Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The industrial dispute raised by the Petitioner before the authority ended infailure of conciliation and on the submission of failure of conciliation report by the authority, this dispute has been referredby the Govt. to this Tribunal for adjudication . Hence , it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the II Party/ Management to reinstate the Petitioner in service with back wages and all other consequential benefits .

3. The averments in the Counter Statement filedby the II Party/ Management , Optical Fibre Division , Department ofTelecommunications, Chennai (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) are briefly as follows :-

The Petitioner approached the department during July, 1999 for any work and hence he was engaged as an outsider intermittently on daily wages , whenever the regular drivers availed leave provided if his service is required . The Petitioner had worked intermittently for 76 days during the year 1999 and 131 days in 2000 . Subsequently, he was not engaged since his service was no more required. The allegation of the Petitioner that he was orally terminated from service on 8-3-2001 is denied as false and incorrect. The Petitioner was not appointed and terminated at any point of time since the Petitioner was not worked 240 days in 12 calendar months and since the Petitioner was not appointed and terminated the question of termination and notice under Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act does not arise . The Department ofTelecommunications is not covered under ESI and other schemes . Since the Petitioner was never appointed by the department, the question of giving notice for retrenchment the reasons for retrenchment and compensation for retrenchment etc. does not arise . There are less than 50 persons working in the Optical Fibre Equipment Division. The Respondent has not violated the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act . The act of the management is legal and justified. The Petitioner is not eligible to get any relief as prayed for in his claim petition . Therefore , it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim of the Petitioner.

4.When the matter was taken up for enquiry , no one has been examined as a witness on either side . The Petitioner has not filed any document. With the consent of the Petitioner's counsel, the II Party documents have been marked as Ex . Ml and M2 series . The counsel for the 1 Party /Workman has not chosen to advance arguments , in spite of sufficient opportunity was given. The learned

Itisadmitted that the Petitioner was engaged by the Respondent Department as Heavy Motor Vehicle Driver and he was paid Rs.85 /- per day as daily wages.It is the contention of the Petitioner that he was first engaged as a Heavy Vehicle Driver on 22-6-99 and when he reported for work on 8-3-2001 he was informed that his services were no more required and that he was requesting the department to regularise his services .Nothing has been mentioned in the Claim Statement that ever since his engagement as Heavy Motor Vehicle Driver on 22-6-99 , he was working continuously under the Respondent/ Management ofDepartment of Telecommunications till he was orally terminated on 8-3-2001 . On the other hand , it is the specific contention of the Respondent in their Counter Statement that during July, 1999 the Petitioner approached the department for any work and hence he was engaged as an outsider intermittently on daily rates wages whenever the regular drivers availed leave and that he had worked intermittently for 76 days during the year 1999 and 131 days in 2000 and subsequently he was not engaged since his service was no more required. In support of this contention, the Respondent has filed documents as Ex.MI and M2 series . The entries made in the Log Book ofvehicle maintained by the Department of Telecommunications , OpticalFibre Division, Madras, from 1-8-99 to 31-10-2000 has been filed as Xerox copies and the same has been marked as Ex.Ml series with the eonsent of the counsel for the I Party . Ex.M2 series is the statement of different vehicles driven by the Petitioner from the month of July, 1999 to October , 2000 , the actual period he has been engaged as a driver in those vehicles . As per these statements he has worked for a total number of 87 days intermittently in the year 1999 and 130 days intermittently inthe year 2000. For these corresponding entries available inEx.MI series Log Book, the Petitioner has subscribed his signature in the column ' Driver's signature ' . This has not been disputed by the Petitioner. It is also the specific contention of the Respondent/Management in their Counter Statement that the Petitioner was not worked 240 days in 12 calendar months and he was neither appointed nor terminated from service by the Respondent department . This has not been denied as false by the Petitioner. Such being the case , as contended by the Respondent/ Management there is no question of retrenchment and notice under Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947.

[PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

3492

rated wages and he has never been appointed as a regular driver in the Respondent department . So under such circumstances, there is no question of any termination of service of the Petitioner by the Respondent/Management andthere is no question of retrenchment and notice under Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act . So on the basis of the facts available in this case , it is seen that there is no question of regularisation of service of the Petitioner by the Respondent/Management . So, the termination as well as non - regularisation of service of the Petitioner by the Department ofTelecommunications , Optical Fibre Division, Chennai does not at all arise.

6.It isalso contended by the Petitioner in his Claim Statement that no retrenchment compensation was issued tohim in lieu ofnotice . As stated earlier there is no violation of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947by.the Respondent/Management for the non -engagement of the Petitioner in service . So the question of payment of compensation in lieu of notice also does not arise .

7. It is the further contention of the Petitioner in his Claim Statement that the Respondent employs more than 100 workmen and as such bound by Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and the Respondent/ Management had not obtained prior permission of the Central Govt .before retrenching him from service and it is obligatory on the part of the Respondent to issue him three months ' notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or pay wages for the period of notice in lieu of such notice . To substantiate this contention , the Petitioner has not let in any acceptable evidence . On the other hand, it is the definite contention of the Respondent/ Management in their Counter Statement that the Respondent / Department ofTelecommunications , Optical Fibre Equipment Division , Chennai , has got less than 50 persons as workmen in their Equipment Division . So, the provision under Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not applicable . So , under such circumstances, it is incorrect to state that the Respondent Department has terminated the services of the Petitioner without giving notice indicating reasons for retrenchment and has not paid wages for the period of notice and has not obtained prior permission from the Central Govt . before retrenching the Petitioner from service and thus , the Respondent department has violated the provisions of Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act . In view of the above contentions , it can be held that there is no termination of service of the Petitioner Sri S.K.Edward Rajkumar by the Department ofTelecommunications, Optical Fibre Division , Chennai and there is no scope for regularisation of his service by the Respondent Department . So , the question of termination and non - regularisation of service of the Petitioner in the Respondent Department does not at all arise . Under such circumstances , the Petitioner/Workman is not entitled for any relief. Thus , the point is answered accordingly.

The Petitioner has come forward with this dispute against theRespondent Telecom Department management claiming the relief of reinstatement in service and regularisation of his service . It is not his averment in his Claim Statement that he has continuously worked for 240 days in 12 calendar months period under the Respondent/ Management . It is also not his case that he has been given a letter of appointment at the time of his initial engagement by the Respondent/Management of Department of Telecommunications in Optical Fibre Division , Chennai and he had worked for 240 days immediately preceding 8-3-2001 within a period of 12 months . He has also not pleadedthat any order of termination has been issued by theRespondent/Managementto remove him from service. On the other hand, it is his specific contention that his services were orally terminated on 8-3-2001 . It is also not stated in his Claim Statement that as to who informed him on 8-3-2001 that his services were no more required . As it isheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported as 2002 ( 1 ) LLJ 1053 RANGE FOREST OFFICER VS, S.T. HADIMONI that " the claimant has to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in preceding year by producing receipt of salary or wages or letter of appointment . Mere filing affidavit by claimant is not sufficient evidence as it is his own statement . " When especially the Respondent has relied in their Counter Statement that the Petitioner /Workman had not worked for 240 days , it is for the Petitioner/Workman to prove by acceptable evidence that he had worked for 240 days preceding the alleged non-employment on 8-3-2001 . In a case reported as 2000 1 LLR 747 RAMGOPAL SAINANI Vs. The JUDGE, LABOUR COURT , JAIPUR AND OTHERS, the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan has held that "when the Petitioner/ Workman has not completed 240 days the compliance of Section 25Fby the Respondent/Management is not required and it is for the workman to prove with documentary evidence that the Respondent/Management had violated the provisions of Section 25H and 25G ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947." Inthis case , the Petitioner has not pleaded that subsequent to his non -engagement, the Respondent/Management has engaged somebody in his place as a violation of Section 25H and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. It is the specific contention of the Respondent/ Management in their Counter Statement that after engaging the Petitioner intermittently for a period of 131 days in the year 2000 he was not engaged since his service no more required. It is also the specific contention of the Respondent / Management in their Counter Statement that the Petitioner was engaged as an outsider intermittently on daily rated wages whenever the regular drivers availed leave . This has not been denied by the Petitioner. From this , it is evident that the Petitioner has been engaged by the Respondent/Department of Telecommunications in their Optical Fibre Equipment Division as Heavy Vehicle Motor Driver whenever the regular drivers availed leave and he had worked as such as an outsider intermittently on daily [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3, 2003/वैशाख 13, 1925

3493

BETWEEN

8. In the result, an Award is passed holding that the concernedworkman Sri S.K.Edward Rajkumar is not entitled for any relief. No Cost .

The Management of the General Manager, Orient Area, MCL , P.O.Brajarajnagar,

Dist. Jharsuguda

istParty Management (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 31st March, 2003.)

AND

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :-

Oneither side

: None

Documents Exhibited :-

For the I Party/Workman : Nil

For the II Party/Management :-

Their workmen represented through TheGeneral Secretary, Brajarajnagar CoalMines Workers Union , At/Po . Rampur colliery, Via.Brajarajnagar, Dist. Jharsuguda.

2nd Party-Union .

Ex.No. Date Description

APPEARANCES :

M1 series (27) Xerox copy of the Log Book of vehicle

Shri S.P. Gupta, Area Personnel Manager.

For the 1st Party Management.

M2 series(2)

Shri D. Mohanta, Vice President : For the 2nd Party

Brajarajnagar Coal Mines Workers Union Union.

Xerox copy ofthe statement showing vehicle No. and number of days the Petitioner had driven for the period 1999 to2000.

नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल , 2003

AWARD

TheGovernment of India in the Ministry ofLabour in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub- section ( 1) and sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their OrderNo. L-22012/ 188/99/IR(CM- II ) , dated 25/31/08/1999;

का. आ. 1360.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एम. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 61/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-4-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/188/99- आई.आर. ( सी.- 11 ) ]

एन. पी. केशवन , डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 7th April, 2003

"Whether the demand of the Brajarajnagar Coal Mines Workers Union for regularization of Shri Hadi Rohidas and other Store Boys/Mazdoors in Rampur colliery store Department and payment of differential wages to them as per NCWA agreement is justified? If not, towhat relief the workmen are entitled? " S.O. 1360.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.61 /2001 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court Bhubaneswar now as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of MCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 4-4-2003.

[No. L-22012/188/99- IR (C- II)]

N. P.KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT : Shri S. K. Dhal, OSJS, (Sr. Branch) , PresidingOfficer, C. G. I. T. -cum -Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

Tr . INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO . 61/2001

Date ofconclusion ofhearing-1 March 2003 Date ofPassingAward-25th March 2003

2. The 2nd Party who is the General Secretary, Brajarajnagar Coal Mines Workers Union is representing S /Shri Hadi Rohidas , Krushna Rohidas , Karna Kar Rodhdsa, Bhim Rohidas , Murali Rohidas , Sena Rohidas , Debraj Rohidas and Sashi Rohidas . The case of the 2nd Party is that the above disputants are the residents of Rampur Chamapara , in the district of Jharsuguda . They are engaged as Store Boys/ Mazdoors in Rampur Colliery Store since the year 1985 and they are doing the work of loading , unloading , stacking of store items like Gas Cylinders , M. S. Rods , Drums , Props , Sleepers , Chain Conveyors , Angles , Components , G.I.Pipes , Khumta, Dolomite Powder , Cement , Lubricant drums etc. continuously by working daily for eight hours and even insome days more than eight hours . Their work is closely connected to the production in the mines of Rampur and Bundia.According to them , the natures ofjob performed bythem are regular and perennial in nature . They received wages directly from the Ist Party- Management . The payment vouchers are prepared by the Ist Party- 115461/03-13 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] 3494

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003/VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

denied. The payment vouchers in relation to payment of weekly or monthly wages , those were issued against the persons for payment of a particular job . The pay vouchers isnot sufficientto satisfy that there was master and servant relationship between the disputants and the 1st Party- Management.

4.The2nd Party has also filed his rejoinder on receipt of the copy of the Written Statement from the 1st Party- Management . While pleading the same as pleaded in their Claim Statement , it has been stated that, the workers being the Class- IV employees their works is supervised by one oftheexperienced officer ofthe 1 * Party- Management and so thatwould suggest that, they are under the direct control ofthe 1 Party -Management.

5.Onthe above pleading ofthe parties, the following Issues have been settled .

ISSUES

1. Whether the disputants of the 2nd Party are the workmen as per the definition of Section 2(K) of the Industrial Disputes Act ?

2. Whether the demand of the 2nd Party- Union for regularization of Sh . Hadi Rohidas and other StoreBoys/Mazdoors in Rampur Colliery Store Department and payment of differential wages to them as per NCWA agreement is justified?

3. Ifnot, towhat relief the workmen are entitled?

Management in the name of one individual workmen and the same amount was distributed equally amongst the workers. There is master and servant relationship between them . After the visit of the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central ) and Labour Enforcement Officer (Central ), Rourkela the workers were kept under a so called contractor from the year 1996 but their work is directly being supervised by the Management . The disputants have rendered services for about 15 years but their service have not been regularized . So the Union raised the grievance for regularization of the disputants . It is further submitted that one of the clauses of the National Coal Wage Agreement ( in short NCWA ) provides that industry shall not engage Labour through contractor or engage contractors Labour on jobs of permanent and perennial in nature. Since , the agreement entered into between the parties under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act as the same is binding on parties the 1 " Party - Management did not regularize the services of the above disputants but hastaken recourse to unfair Labour practice. They raised a dispute, conciliation failed , so the present reference has been made . In the Claim Statement , prayer has been made to pass award directing the I " Party - Management for regularization of eight disputants from the date of their serviceswith further prayer for payment of differential of wages with all consequential service benefits to the disputants from retrospective dates of their initial engagement .

6.On behalf ofthe 2nd Party- Union three witnesses have been examined . The I " Party- Management has examined two witnesses and has exhibited eight documents .

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO . 1

3. The 1 " Party - Management has filed their Written Statement . The 1 " Party - Management in their Written Statement has pleaded that, the company engaged in mining and selling ofcoal in the State of Orissa . For administrative convenience , the Company has been divided into different areas/colliery. Rampur Colliery is one ofsuch Colliery under Orient Area of Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. The disputants are engaged as contractors of MCL to perform the contractual jobs of loading, unloading , stacking of store items . They are in contractual job of small departmental storeat Rampur . Their job work are intermittent and casual in nature and do not require maintaining the permanent work force. The company has schedule rates for meeting such contingency known as G.M. Schedule for meeting the casual jobs and so they are paid according to the jobs performed by them on the certified rate. Further case of the 1* Party Management is that no appointment letters has beenissued to them nor the 1 " Party - Management exercises any supervision or control over the said disputants . They raised a dispute for their regularization and for payment of differential wages before the Conciliation Officer , which was ended in a failure . The disputants being the contractors , there is no existence ofemployer and employee relationship between them. Their further pleadings is that, the disputants are not the workmen within the meaning of Section 2(K) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the jobs attended by them is not permanent and perennial in nature. The engagement of the disputants as Store Boys/ Mazdoors under the 1 Party- Management has been

7. It is submitted on behalf of the 1 " Party- Management that the disputants employed by the Contractors forworking as contract Labourers are not their workmen within the meaning of Section 2(K ) of the Industrial Disputes Act and as there is no relationship of master and servant between the 1ª Party- Management and those disputants , there could not exist any Industrial Disputes between them . On the other hand, it is submitted orbehalfofthe 2nd Party that, even ifthe disputants though treated as contract labourers can raise a dispute coming under the definition ' any person ' appearing in Section 2( K) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act . Reference may be made in the case ofWorkmen ofDahingeapara Tea Estate -Versus- Dahingeapara Tea Estate , reported in AIR 1958 SC 1026. In thatcase, it was held that, where the workmen raise a dispute as against their employer , the person or persons regarding whose employment or non - employment the dispute is raised need not be , strictly speaking, ' workmen ' within the meaning of the Act , but must be persons in whose employment or non- employment the ' workmen ' as a class havea direct or substantial interest . The work ' any person ' in Section 2( K ) of the Industrial Disputes Act can not be construed very narrowly or can it be given a very wide [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3, 2003/ वैशाख 13 , 1925

meaning . The said words are to be interpreted in a reasonable manner, naturally, depending on the facts of echoes. In case where there is a community of interest because the employment and non employment under the circumstances is a matter, which concerns the workers . The persons raising a dispute will come under the workman and there exists the relationship ofemployer and employee and the Industrial Dispute is maintainable. This Issue is answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO . II

3495 the disputants was dependent on the availability of the work. When the disputants have been appointed by the 1 * Party-Management and the disputants have not faced any selection process and that when they have failed to prove thatthey have worked for 240 days in a calendar year , I am ofthe opinion that they are not entitled for regularization , particularly when no posts are lying vacant and that in view of the admission by the witness examined on behalf ofthe 2nd Party that there engagement is not continuous. Hence, this Issue is answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO. III

8. It is submitted on behalf of the 1" Party- Management that the disputants have failed to make out a case for absorption because they have not produced any appointment letter to have been issued to them and they have not proved that they have worked for 240 days in a calendar year . It is further submitted that, the workbeing casual in nature, the engagement of the disputants were intermittent and when there is no vacancy the question of absorption of the disputants does not arise . On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the 2nd Party that, when the engagement of the disputants have been admittedthe question of production of any appointment letter does not arise. As regards the work done , it is submitted on behalf ofthe 2nd Partythat the witness ofthe 1ª Party-Management has admitted that the disputants are working for a long period i.e. since 1985. So, the 1 * Party- management can not take a stand that they have not worked for 240 days in a calendaryear.

9. No documents have been filed on behalf ofthe 2nd Party except one , which is the copy of the attendance register . The 2nd Party has tried to establish that , their attendance was taken . The said documents could not be exhibited as it could not be proved on behalf of the 2nd Party. Admittedly, the 1ª Party-Management has not issued any order of appointment/engagement to the disputants and they have not been appointed against any vacant posts. Ext . -A, Ext . - B, Ext . -C, Ext. - D, Ext. - E, Ext. - F and Ext . -G are some receipts which reveals that payment has been made to one of the disputants for doing a particular work as contract labourer . These, documents have not been challenged by the 2nd Party . So, there is no materials before the Tribunal to record a finding that each of the disputants has worked for 240 days in a calendar year against any vacant post for which he was appointed. Three witnesses have been examined on behalf of the 2nd Party- Union . One isthe clerk ofthe 1ª Party- Management, the Witness No. 2 is one of the disputants and the Witness No. 3 is the executive member of the Union . 2nd Party Witness No. 2, who is one of the disputants in the cross examination has admitted that they were getting payments on the date on which they worked. That would suggest that , the disputants were not engaged continuously. In the cross examination, he has also further admitted that they were doing the work of loading and unloading of explosive substances and the explosive substances are not coming to the store every day. This submission of the witness No. 2 of the 2nd Party would suggest that, the engagement of 10. In view of my findings given in respect of Issue No. II the disputants ofthe 2nd Party- Union are not entitled foranyrelief.

11. Reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated&Corrected byme .

S.K. DHAL, Presiding Officer BEFORE THEC.G.LT. -CUM- LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Tr . ID. Case No. 61/2001

nd List of the Witnesses Examined on behalf ofthe 2 Party-

Union .

W.W.No. 1. Shri Purna Chandra Rao .

W. W.No 2. Shri Murali Rohi Das .

W. W.No 3. Shri Gajanan Sahoo .

List ofthe Witnesses Examined on behalf of the 1 Party-Management .

M. W.No. 1. Shri Hare Krishna Swain.

M. W. No. 2. Shri Thoms Parmanik,

List of the documents Exhibited on behalf of the 2nd Party-Workman .

No documents have been exhibited . Copy ofthe Attendance register maintained by the Store Officer is Marked'X'.

List of the documents Exhibited on behalf of the 1 Party- Management .

Ext.-A.

CooleeBilldated 1-6-95 for Rs . 2,068.70

Ext-B

do-dated 4-5-95 for Rs . 1,424.85

Ext.-C. do-dated 18-5-95 for Rs 1,708.90

Ext.-D.

Copy of receipts showing payment made by theManagement dated 20-5-1995, Bill dated 18-5-1995.

Ext.-E.

Copy of receipts showing payment made bytheManagement dated 6-5-1995, Bill dated4-5-1995.

Ext.-F. Copy of receipts showing payment made bytheManagement dated 3-6-1995, Bill dated 1-6-1995.

Ext-G.

Copy of theG.M.Schedule Ratesdated 4-6-1998

Ext.-H.

Copy oftheG.M.Schedule Rates .

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 3496

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल , 2003

Ltd, in dismissing the services ofSri Tapa Narayan Nunia , U.G. Loader w.e.f. 20-02-2000 is legal and justified? If not what relief Sh . Nunia is entitled to?"

का. आ. 1361.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय ई. सी. एल . प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण असनसोल (संदर्भ संख्या 11/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04-04-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2. In response to the summons issued by the Tribunal both the parties appeared through their respective representatives. Shri P. Goswami , Advocate appeared for the management and Shri S. K. Pandey, Chief General Secretary of Koyala Mazdoor Congress appeared for the union. Both the parties filed their respective written statements and contested the dispute .

[सं. एल-22012/232/ 2000 - आई. आर. (बी. II ) ] एन. पी, केशवन , डैस्क अधिकारी. New Delhi , the 7th April , 2003

3. The facts ofthe case, in brief, are that the workman viz. Shri Tapa Narayan Nunia was an employee of M/s. ECL andwas posted at Sodepur Colliery as U. G. Loader . Theworkman was dismissed from service on the ground of unauthorised absence from his duty from 30-6-1999 to 17-9-1999. The union has challanged the order of dismissal ofthe workman from his service.

S.O. 1361.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11/2001 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ECL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 04-04-2003.

[No. L-22012/232/2000- IR (C- II)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

Present: Shri Ramjee Pandey PresidingOfficer

Reference No. 11 of2001 .

Parties:

4. The case of the union (workman), in brief, is that the wife of the workman become seriously ill and he was busy in attending his wife . The workman did not become absent deliberately rather the situation was beyond his control. No sooner the wife of the workman recovered he reported for duty but was not allowed by the management rather he was served with a charge-sheet. Although the workman took part in the enquiry proceeding but he was not given opportunity to defend himself. He was not supplied either the documents ofday to day proceeding or the findings of enquiry. He was not served even with the second show -cause notice . Further case of the union is that the punishment of dismissal from service is harsh and disproportionate. Although he was dismissed but the order of dismissal was passed by the manager of the colliery who was not the competent authority, hence the order of dismissal is illegal and unjustified . A prayer has been made todirect the management to reinstate the workman in service with backwages.

Agent , Sodepur Colliery ofE.C.L. ...Management Vrs. Sri TapaNarayan Nunia, U. G. Loader ...Workman.

Representation:

For the Management : Shri P. Goswami, Advocate .

For the Union (workman ) : Shri S. K. Pandey, ChiefGeneral Secy. , Koyala Mazdoor Congress, Asansol .

Coal .

State: West Bengal .

try:

Dated , the 24th January, 2003 AWARD

5. The case of the management , in brief, is that the absence of workman was unauthorised because he had neither obtained leave or given prior information to the management . The management served a charge - sheet to theworkman and an enquiry proceeding was conducted in which the workman fully participated. He was given fully opportunity to defend himself. After conducting the enquiry proceeding the Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report in which he has arrived at a finding that the charge against the workman has been established . In past also the workman usually absented himself from duty . Further case ofthe management is that principle of natural justice has not been violated and the punishment of dismissal from service is legal and justified which does not require interference by the Tribunal .

In exercit powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its order No. L-22012 /232/2000- IR(C.II ) dated 27-4-2001 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :

6. Although in the writeen statement the union has pleaded that the workman was not given opportunity to defend himself but during hearing on the point of fairness and validity of enquiry proceeding the union did not "Whether the action of the management of Sodepur Colliery under M/s Eastern Coalfields [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3, 2003/वैशाख 13, 1925

challange the same and hence by order dated 22-8-02 the enquiry proceeding has been held to be fair and valid.

7. First point for consideration is as to whether the management has established the charge against the workman and as to whether the finding of Enquiry Officer is based on evidence and the same is correct . In this connection I perused the enquiry report as well as the materials collected during enquiry. It is admitted fact that the workman was absent from his duty from 30-6-1999 to 17-9-1999 without any leave or prior intimation to the competent authority. Only plea is taken on behalf of the workman in this regard that due to the fact that his wife was seriously ill, he could not attend his duty. During enquiry proceeding also he had pleaded the same fact but no evidence in support of illness of his wife was given . Although the EnquiryOfficer has not discussed this aspect of the matter but I find that the workman has failed to prove the fact that his wife was ill and hence this plea of theworkman can not be accepted . In this view of the matter Ifind that charge against the workman has been established and the finding of Enquiry Officer is correct.

3497 नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल, 2003

का. आ. 1362.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय बी. सी. सी. एल. प्रबंधतंत्रके संबद्धनियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण आसनसोल (संदर्भ संख्या 10/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04-04-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -22012/ 52/98- आई. आर. ( सी. II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi, the 7th April , 2003

S.O. 1362. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. 10/1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 04-04-2003 .

[No. L- 22012/52/98 - IR (C- 11 ) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT , ASANSOL

Present: Shri Ramjee Pandey PresidingOfficer

Reference No. 10 of 1999 .

Parties: Agent, Victoria West Colliery of ofB.C.C. Ltd. ...Management

Vrs.

Shri Prayag Singh , U. G. Loader

...Workman .

Representation:

For the Management

8. Next point for consideration is as to whether the punishment of dismissal from service is harsh and disproportionate. In this regard it was submitted on behalf ofthe workman that in past the workman was neither served with any charge- sheet nor he was ever punished for any type of misconduct . The present charge is not so serious which canwarrant maximum punishment of dismissal from service.Learned lawer for the management contended that in past also the workman had poor attendence and considering the past record the order of dismissal is justified. In view of contrary submissions I perused the materials collected during enquiry and I find that in past theworkman was not charged for any type of misconduct . Although the Enquiry Officer has mentioned the fact of absence ofthe workman in past but the charge- sheet does not include the same and that can not be considered at all . Before passingthe order of dismissal also no second show- cause notice was given and hence I find that past record ofthe workman was clear. Only charge against the workman remains established that he became absent from his duty for the first time for a period of two months seventeen days . In my opinion the misconduct is not serious warranting the capital punishment.

9. In view of above discussion I find that the punishment ofdismisssal is shocking and disproportionate to the nature of mis - conduct . Hence the order of dismissal is set aside. The management is directed to reinstate the workman in service . Although the management has neither pleaded nor proved that the workman was gainfully employed anywhere but considering that fact that charge against the workman has been proved, he is entitled to only 50% of the back wages . In the above manner the award ispassed.

RAMJEE PANDEY, Presiding Officer

: Shri P. K. Das , Advocate .

FortheUnion (workman) : Shri L. S. Prasad, JointGeneral Secy. , Dhanbad Colliery Karmachari Sangh (BMS).

Coal.

Industry:

State: West Bengal . Dated, the 31st January , 2003 AWARD

Inexercise of powers conferred by clause( d) ofsub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Govt . of India through the Ministry ofLabour vide its order No. L- 22012/52/98- IR(CM- 11) dated 21-01-1998 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal :

"Whether the action ofthe management ofVictoria WestColliery of Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. , in 3498

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] dismissing Sri Prayag Singh , U.G. Loader is justified ? If not to what relief the workmen is entitled to?"

2. In response to the summons, issued by the Tribunal both the parties appeared through their respective representations . The management appeared through Sri P. K. Das, Advocate and the Union (workman) appeared through Sri L. S. Prasad, Joint General Secretary of Dhanbad Colliery Karamchari Sangh ( BMS) . Both the parties filed their respective written statements and contested the disputes.

3. The facts of the case , in brief, are that the workman namely Sri Prayag Singh was an employee of M/s . B.C.C.L. and posted as U.G. Loader at Victoria West Colliery, Area XII . He was chargesheeted and after domestic enquiry dismissed from service on ground of absence from duty from 30-4-1994 to 27-7-1995 and the Union has challenged the order ofdismissal .

7. First point for consideration is as to whether the charge against the workman has been established and the finding of enquiry officer is correct . In this regard it was submitted by the representative of the Union that the workman has positively stated before the enquiry officer thathe was ill and suffering from kidney problem for which hewas undergoing treatment by Dr. H.S. Prasad, Astt . Civil Surgeon of Jamui P.H.C. and later on he was admitted in Amui hospital due to which could not attend his duty but the enquiry officer neither considered this evidence nor disbelieved the same . In support of plea of illness the workman produced the medical certificate which was sufficient proof of illness of the workman but the enquiry officer did not consider the same and hence the finding of enquiry officer is against the nationals on record . On the other hand learned lawyer for the management submitted that the workman could not get the treatment from the hospital ofthe company and he could not gave information to the management earlier and hence his plea cannot be accepted.

4. The case of the Union ( workman ), in brief, is that the workman fell ill and was undergoing treatment in Government hospital due to which he was unable to perform hisduty for the alleged period. During enquiry also he had takenthe plea of illness arid produced the papers of medical treatment by the doctor of government hospital but the enquiry officer did not consider the same and gave a wrong finding . The enquiry proceeding was conducted ignoring the principle of natural justice , because the workman was not given adequate opportunity to defend himself. The order of dismissal from service is illegal and unjustified. On the above pleadings a prayer has been made to direct the management to reinstate the workman in service with back wages.

8. In view of contrary submissions 1 perused the enquiry report and materials collected during enquiry. It is admitted fact that the workman was absent from his duty from30-4-1994 to27-7-1995 . The only plea is taken by the workman that due to sickness he was absent . During enquiry he has positively stated that he was suffering from kidney trouble and was undergoing treatment by doctor of government hospital . He also produced the medical certificates in support of his plea. I find that the enquiry officer has not considered the evidence produced by the workman and has given no reason either for rejecting or accepting the same . Simply because the workman got medical treatment from government doctor and not by doctor of the company his plea of illness cannot be disbelieved. In this view of the matter I find that the workman was ill during this period due to which he could not resume his duty and the absence of the workman was not deliberate rather in circumstance beyond his control . Hence I find that charge against the workman has not been established and the finding of enquiry officer is baseless andwrong.

5. The case of the management, in brief, is that the workman became absent from his duty without leave or prior intimation to any competent authority of the management and the absence of the workman was unauthorised. The workman was charge- sheeted for this misconducted and after conducting domestic enquiry his misconduct was established due to which he was dismissed from his service . The workman was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself and he participated during enquiry . Although the workman produced medical certificates in support of his plea of illness but he did not inform the management in this regard earlier . The workman was a habitual absentee and in past also he had poor attendence . The absence of the workman was for a long period of one year three months and hence the punishment of dismissal is legal and justified .

9. As discussed and held above the charge of unauthorised absence of the workman has not been established. Only fault on the part of the workman is that he should not inform the management about his cause of absence by any source but this cannot be a ground to award maximum punishment of dismissal from service . In my opinion the punishment of dismissal is shocking and unjustified. Hence the order of dismissal is set aside and the management is directed to reinstate the workman in service. It is neither pleaded nor proved by the inanagement that the workman was gainfully employed any where , but in the facts and circumstances of the case the workman will be entitled to 75% of the back wages . In the above manner award is passed .

6. Although Union has pleaded in this W.S. that no adequate opportunity was given to the workman to defend himself but at the time of hearing on the point of fairness and validity of enquiry proceeding the representative of the union did not challenge the same and hence by order dated 31-12-2002 the enquiry proceeding has been held to be fair and valid .

RAMJEE PANDEY, Presiding Officer 3499 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 3 , 2003/वैशाख 13, 1925

नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल , 2003

the management ofSingareni Collieries Co. Ltd. and their workman. The reference is ,

THE SCHEDULE

का. आ. 1363.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय, एस. एस. सी. एल. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद ( संदर्भ संख्या 291/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04-04-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/35/2002- आंई . आर.( सी. II ) ]

"Whether the action of the M/ s . Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. , Sreerampur in denying the payment of wage to Sri Kamella Devaiah Pump Operator , Sreerampur Division , SRP -3 & 3 A incline for the period from 3-1-96 to 6-2-96 on the grounds of no vacancy in the transferred place of posting is legal justified or not ? Ifnot , to what relief is the worker entitled ? " एन . पी . केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as 1.D. No. 291/2002 and noticed issue to the parties.

New Delhi , the 7th April , 2003

S.O. 1363. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref.No. 291 / 2002) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in the relation to the management of SCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 04-04-2003.

2. Petitioner called absent inspite of several notices and several adjoumments given from 28-11-2002 for filling of claim statement and documents for 5 adjournments including 28-2-2003 the Petitioner has not turnend-out with claim statement and documents . Inspite of number of adjournments the petitioner has falied to produce any evidance in support ofhis claim . There is nothing on record to support his claim. Therefore, the reference is ordered against the petitioner and it is held that the petitione is not entitled for any relief.

[No. L-22012/35/2002- IR (C - II)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

Accordingly a ' Nil ' Award is passed , Transmit .

ANNEXURE

Dictated to Kum. K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 28th day of February, 2003 .

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT , ATHYDERABAD

E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer Present:

Appendix ofEvidence

Shri E. ISMAIL PresidingOfficer

Witness examined for the Witness examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent Dated: 28th day ofFebruary,2003 INDUSSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 291/2002

NIL

Between:

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL

Sri S. Thirupathi ,

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

.... Petitioner

President, Godavari Loya Boggu Gani Karmika Sangam ( IFTU) RK-6 Huts Area, SRPColony, Distt. Adilabad-504303.

नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल, 2003

AND

TheGeneral Manager , M/ s. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. , Sreerampur-504303

..Respodent

APPEARANCES :

Nil

For the Petitioner :

M/s. K. Srinivasa Murthy,

Forthe Respodent

का. आ. 1364.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय, एस. एस. सी. एल. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक्त अधिकरण हैदराबाद ( संदर्भ संख्या 290/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04-04-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

C.Vijayashekar Reddy &

G. Praveen Kumar , Advocates

AWARD

[सं. एल -22012/34/2002-आई. आर. ( सी. II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन , डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 7th April , 2003 The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L - 22012/35/2002 - IR ( CM.II ) dated 3-10-2002 referred the following dispute under section 10( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between

S.O. 1364,-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 290 3500

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in the relation to the management of SCCL and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 04-04-2003.

[No. L-22012/34/2002 - IR(C- II)]

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, HYDERABAD

PRESENT :

SHRI E. ISMAIL PresidingOfficer

Dated: 28th day ofFabruary ,2003 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 290/2002 Between:

Sri S. Thirupathi ,

.... Petitioner President, Godavari Loya Boggu Gani Karmika Sangam ( IFTU ) RK- 6 Huts Area , SRP Colony, Distt .Adilabad -504303 .

AND

..Respodent TheGeneral Manager , M/s. Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd. Sreerampur- 504303

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner :

Nil

For the Respodent

M/sK.Srinivasa Murthy, V. Umadevi, C.Vijayashekar Reddy & G.Praveen Kumar, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L - 22012/ 34/2002-1R (CM.II ) dated 3-10-2002 referred the following dispute under section 10( 1 ) ( d ) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. and their workman. The referenece is

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the M/ s Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. Sreerampur in denying to correct the list of seniority in respect of Pump Operators , viz . S/Sri K. Devaiah , T. Madhava Reddy, G. Sankaraia, Pump Operators in SRP - 3 & 3A incline of Sreerampur Division is justified or not ? If not , to what relief are theworkmen entitled? "

The refererance is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 290/2002 and notice issue to the parties .

2.Petitioner called absent in spite of several notices and several adjoumments given from 28-11-2002 for filing of claim statement and document for 5 adjournments

[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii) ] including 28-2-2003 the Petitioner has not turendout with claim statement and document. In spite of number of adjournments the petitioner has failed to produce any evidence in support ofhis claim . There is nothing on record to support his claim . Therefore , the reference is ordered against the petitioner and it is held that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

Accordingly a ' Nil' Award is passed, Transmit .

Dictated to Kum.K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 28th day ofFebruary , 2003 .

E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer Appendix ofevidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the -Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

नईदिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल, 2003

का. आ. 1365.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. एस. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के 'बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद ( संदर्भ संख्या.264/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04-04-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/306/2001- आई . आर. ( सी. 11 ) ]

एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 7th April , 2003

S.O. 1365.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref.No. 264/ 2002) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in the relation management of SCCL and their workmen , which was received by the Central Govemment on 04-04-2003.

[No. L-22012/306/2001 - IR(C- II )] N. P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT, ATHYDERABAD

Present : SHRI E. ISMAIL PresidingOfficer 3501

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3, 2003/वैशाख 13, 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Dated: 28th day of Fabruary, 2003

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 264/2002

Dictated to Kum . K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronouncedby me on this the 28th day of February , 2003 ,

Between:

E. ISMAIL , Presiding Officer Sri N. Kistaiah ,

Appendix ofevidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent

...Petitioner

Branch Secretary, Singareni Colliery WorkersUnion (AITUC) Godavarikhani .-505 209

AND

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

The General Manager , M/ s . Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. Mandamari Division Mandamari - 504231 .

...Respondent

Docene marked fort he Respondent APPEARANCES :

NIL

Nil

For the Petitioner :

नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल , 2003 For the Respodent

M/sK.Srinivasa Murthy, V. Umadevi & C.Vijayashekar Reddy Kumar, Advocates

AWARD

का. आ. 1366. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 194 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ऐस. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद ( संदर्भ संख्या 258/2002 ) को प्रकाशि करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04-04-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था

[सं. एल-22012/246/2001-आई. आर. ( सी. 11 ) ]

एन. पी. केशवन , डैस्क अधिकारी 3 TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L- 2206/2001 - IR (CM.II ) dated 1-8-2002 freferred the following dispute under section 10( 1 )(d ) of the I.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of Singareni Celeries C. Ltd. and their workman . The referenece is ,

New Delhi , the 7th April , 2003 SCHEDULE

S.O. 1366. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Govemment hereby publishes the award ( Ref.No 258/2002) ofthe Central Government Industrial Trial- cum - Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in the relation to themanagement of SCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 04-04-2003.

"Whether the action of the General Manager M/s . Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd . Mandamari Division , Mandamari in denying the payment of suspension wes (Subsistence Allowance ) for the suspension period of 10 days from 29-2-2000 in respect of Sh. Gondugu Sammaiah , Hauler Operator of KK-5 Inc. , Mandamari Divn . is justified ? If not, to what relief is workman entitled?"

[No. L-22012/246/2001 - IR (C - II )] The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No..264/2002 and notices issued to the parties .

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, HYDERABAD

PRESENT: SHRI E. ISMAIL Presiding Officer

2.Petitioner called absent in spite of several notices and several adjournments given from 8-10-2002 for filing ofclaim statement and documents for seven adjournments including 28-2-2003 the Petitioner has not turned out with claim statement and documents . In spite of number of adjournments the petitioner has failed to produce any evidance in support of his claim .There is nothing on record to support his claim . Therefore , the reference is ordered against the petitioner and it is held that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

Dated: 28th day of Fabruary , 2003

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 258/2002 Accordingly a ' Nil ' Award is passed , Transmit .

115491103-14 3502

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

Between:

Sri V. Seetharamaiah .

General Secretary , S.C. Workers Union (AITUC ) , Mandamarri - 50423 1 .

.... Petitioner AND

TheGeneral Manager , M/s . Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. Mandamarri Division , Mandamarri - 504231

..Respodent APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner :

Nil

For the Respodent

M/ sK.SrinivasaMurthy,

V. Umadevi & C.Vijayashekar Reddy, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 22012 /246/ 2001 - İR (CM.II) dated 25-7-2002 referred the following dispute under section 10( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of Singareni Collieries C. Ltd. and thier workman . The referenece' is ,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the General Manager , M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. Mandamarri Division in dismissing the services of Sri Geesa Rayalingu , Filler, KK- 5A Incline of Mandamarri Division ofM/s S.C. Co. Ltd. , is justified or not? If not , to what relief the workman entitled ? "

The refererance is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 258/2002 and notices issued to the parties .

2. Petitioner called absent inspite of several notices and several adjournments given from 18-10-2002 for filling of claim statement and documents for 7 adjournments including 28-2-2003 the Petitioner has not turned- out with claim statement and document . Inspite of number of adjournments the petitoner has failed to produce any evidence in support of his claim . There is nothing on record to support his claim . Therefore, the reference is ordered against the petitioner and it is held that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

Accordingly a ' Nil ' Award is passed , Transmit .

Dictated to Kum . K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronouncedby me on thisthe 28th day of February , 2003 .

E. ISMAIL , Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent

NIL

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल , 2003

का. आ. 1367.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय , एस. एस. सी. एल. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद ( संदर्भ संख्या 293/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04-04-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -22012/37/ 2002- आई. आर. ( सी. II ) ]

एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th April , 2003

S.O. 1367.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref.No. 293/2002 ) ofthe CentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the emers in the relation management of SCCL and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 04-04-2003 .

[No. L-22012/37/2002- IR(C- 11 ) ] N. P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT: SHRI E. ISMAIL Presiding Officer

Dated : 28th day of Fabruary , 200 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 293/2002 Between:

Sri N. Kistaiah ,

Branch Secretary, Singareni Colliery Workers Union ( AITUC) Qtr .No. C-27,

.... Petitioner 1st Zone, Mandamarri- 504 231

AND

TheGeneral Manager ,

M/s Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd. Mandamarri Division , Mandamarri -504231

..Respodent [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3503

भारत काराजपत्र : मई 3 , 2003/वैशाख 13, 1925

APPEARANCES :

नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल , 2003

: Nil

Forthe Petitioner

For the Respondent : M/ s K. Srinivasa Murthy , V. Umadevi & C.Vijayashekar Reddy & G. Praveen Kumar , Advocates

AWARD

का. आ. 1368.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सदर्न रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- कम-लेबर कोर्ट , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी. नं. 19/ 2003) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04-04-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -41011/28/1995- आई. ओर. ( बी. 1 ) ]

अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी The Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 22012/37/2002 - IR (CM.II ) dated 3-10-2002 referred the following dispute under section 10( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. and thier workman . The referenece is ,

New Delhi , the 7th April , 2003 SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. , Mandamarri in dismissing Sri Ammula Mallaiah , Ex - coal Filler , SMG-3 Incline , Mandarmarri Division from service w.e.f. 6-7-1999 is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

S.O. 1368. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No 19/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in the relation to management of Southern Railway and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government ' on04-04-2003.

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 293/2002 and notices issued to the parties.

[No. L -41011 /28/ 1995 - IR ( B- I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Tuesday, the Ist April , 2003 2. Petitioner called absent inspite of several notices and several adjornments given from 28-11-2002 for filling of claim statement and document for 5 adjournments including 28-2-2003 the Petitioner has not tumed - out with claim statement and documents. Inspite of number of adjournments the petitoner has failed to produce any evidence in support ofhis claim .There is nothing on record to support his claim . Therefore, the reference is ordered against the petitioner and it is held that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

PRESENT: K. KARTHIKEYAN, PresidingOfficer

Accordingly a ' Nil ' Award is passed, Transmit .

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 19/2003 Dictated to Kum. K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 28th day of February, 2003 .

E. ISMAIL , Presiding Officer

[Inthe matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Workmen and the Management of Southern Railway, Madras.

Appendix of evidence

Between:

1 Party/ Claimant Witnesses examined for thePetitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

S/Shri R. Palani & Others, C/o. General Secretary , Southern Railway Casual Labour Union , Kochi .

Documents marked for the Petitioner

AND

NIL

The Senior Divisional

... 11 Party/Management

Personnel Officer,

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

Southern Railway , Madras.

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003/VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

3504

APPEARANCES :

Madraswith effect from 24-4-94 in violation ofSection 25F of I.D. Act , 1947 is just, proper and legal ? Ifnot towhat relief are the workmen entitled to ?" For the Claimant : Unrepresented

For the Management : Sri G. Kalayansundaram , CGSC

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section (1) and sub -section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial. Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , have referred the concerned industrial dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-41011/ 28/1995 /IR(B- 1 ) dated03-12-2002.

On receipt of the order of reference from the Government of India , Ministry of Labour, this cașe has beentaken on file as I.D. No. 19/2003 and notices were sent to the parties to the dispute by registered post , with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 17-01-2003 to filetheir respective Claim Statement and Counter Statement and to prosecute this case further . In spite of notice sent by Registered Post and duly served on the I Party/Claimant Union, the date on which the hearing was fixed as no one appeared before this Tribunal for the I Party/Claimant , the case was adjoumed to the next two hearing dates for filing Claim Statement of the I Party/Claimant. Though the order of reference cited above , sentby the Ministry of Labour directly to the I Party to the given address , they have not chosen to appear before this Tribunal within fifteen days ofreceipt of that reference and to file the Claim Statement. The counsel who entered appearance for the 11 Party/ Management had filed his tatement of objection to the dispute raised by the 1 Party/Claimant with a copy ofthe Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/Management earlier before the conciliating authority and also the xerox copy ofthejudgement of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. Nos . 835 to 845 of 1992. The learned counsel for the 11 Party/Management has advanced his arguments. On hearing the arguments of the learned counsel orders has been reserved to decide the dispute , on merits , on the available materials and records .

Upon perusing the order of reference , statement of objection filed by the II Party/Management the other material paper on record, after hearing the arguments learned counsel for the II Party / advanced by Management alo and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration , this Tribunal has passed on merits , the following:-

2. As it is seen from the records, the I Party/Claimant union has raised this dispute on behalf of the concerned workmen. Earlier they have approached the Labour Court byway ofclaim petitions in the year 1986 and 1988 under section 33 (c)(2) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking monetary benefits to the tune of Rs . 20,000/- each on the ground that they have worked as Casual Labourers continuously for 120 days and had acquired a temporary status and are entitled to wages at the scale of Rs . 196-232 p.m. The Railway administration refuted that claim and contended that they were not the workmen in Railways and there is no relationship between the railways and the Petitioners as that of employer and employee and that they were only piece rate labourers engaged whenever therewas work and for that they were suitably remunerated. After considering the contentions of either parties , the Hon'ble Labour Court has dismissed their claims by order dated 26-5-89 . Further , these Petitioners has moved the Central Administrative Tribunal Madras by filing Original Petitions No. 835 to 845/92 seeking direction to the Railway Administration to grant them temporary status and regularise their services from the date they have completed 120 days of continuous service . In that O.S. the Respondent Railway Administration filed a Counter Statement stating that they are not Casual Labourers engaged by the Railway administration and that the Central Administrative Tribunal has observed in the order passed thatthese Petitioners are only piece rate labourers and not casual Labourers as claimed . Then subsequently , they have raised a dispute before the Labour Commissioner (Central ) claiming that their termination from service by the management ofSouthern Railway, Madras w.e. f. 24-4-1994 is in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as unjust , improper and illegal and consequently prayed for a direction for reinstatement in service by the Respondent/Management . That has been ended in a failure . As the Central Govt . has not referred the matter for adjudication to the Tribunal , the Petitioners have preferred aWrit Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and got a direction to the Central Govt. to refer this dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 to the Tribunal for adjudication . Accordingly, this dispute has been referred to this Tribunal for adjudication .

AWARD

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above mentioned order of reference by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :-

3. In the absence of Claim Statement filed by the Union representing the concerned workmen or by the concerned workmen themselves , the Respondent Southern Railway management has filed their statement of objection. The averments in that statement of Respondent are briefly asfollows:-

ThePetitioners are not railway employees . They are onlypiece rate labourers engaged whenever there is work and were suitably remunerated . Since they are "Whether the termination of S/ Shri R. Palani , A.R. Anandan, S. Selvam , C. Muthu , M.Vijayan , G. Ganesan , S. Kasinathan , G. Kuppusamy, S.R. Palani , Devaraj and A. Ravikumar , Ex - Goods Shed Porters , Jolarpet who were in continuous employment for 17 years by the management of Southern Railway, 3505 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3, 2003/वैशाख 13, 1925

not railway employees , the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable . The Petitioners have already filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal , Chennai as O.A. Nos . 835 to 845/92 for a direction to the Respondent to grant temporary status and regularisation of service . Those original applications have been dismissed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai by an order dated 18-7-1994 . Since one such order has been passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal , the Petitioners cannotmake any claim again, and again for the same cause of action in different forums . They have not been appointed as Casual Labourers in Railways . They are not entitled for any compensation under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act . Hence , it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the industrial dispute raised by the concernedworkmen .

an order passed by that forum. As contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent / Management , that the Petitioners having failed to get the relief from the Central Administrative Tribunal , Chennai , have once again come forward before this forum by way of raising an industrial dispute and hence, the Petitioners are not entitled for any relief, as they have prayed for in this dispute . In the reference itself it is stated that the concerned workmen were in continuous employment for 17 years by the management of Southern Railway , Madras and their termination of service by the Respondent/Management from 24-4-94 is in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. In support of the contention that the said action of the II Party/Management Southern Railway is unjust , improper and illegal , neither these workmen nor the Union 'which is raising this dispute on their behalf has not come forward before this Tribunal to prosecute this case . On the other hand, from the plea and the evidence let in by the Respondent Southern Railway management and from the xerox copy of the order passed by Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal , Chennai, in O.A. Nos . 835 to 845/ 1992 filed by these Petitioners earlier , it is seen that the Petitioners are not the employees of Southern Railway and there is no employer and employee relationship between them andthey have been engaged as a piece ratę labourers, whenever there is work and for the same they were paid. wages suitably . Under such circumstances, in the absence ofacceptable proof on the side of the Petitioner that they were employed continuosly for a period of 120 days by the Southern Railway administration , they cannot claim the reliefofgranting them temporary status and regularisation of their service by the Respondent/Management. So.on the basis of the available materials, it is seen that there is no question of termination of services of these Petitioners by the Southem Railway management , Madras w.e.f. 24-4-94 in violation of section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act. So, the concerned workmen are not entitled for any relief. The point is answered accordingly .

5. In the result, an Award is passed on merits, holding that the II Party/management of Southern Railway has not acted illegally in respect of the concerned workmen inviolation ofSection 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 andthe concerned workmen are not entitled for any relief. No Cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer , transcribed and typed byhim, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court onthis day the 1st April , 2003. )

K. KARTHIKEYAN , Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

: None

On either side

Documents Exhibited :

Oneither side : Nil

4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, as usual , the I Party/Workmen and the Union which represent them remained absent . In support of the dispute they have raised against the Respondent Southern Railway , no statement of claim has been filed by the Petitioners/ Workman or by the Union who has taken up their cause. No evidence either oral or documentary has been produced before this Tribunal by the Petitioners to prove their claim which they have raised as an industrial dispute. On the other hand, the Respondent Southern Railway management has filed their statement of objection stating that the similar claim of the Petitioner which has been raised before the Central Administrative Tribunal , Chennai by them by way of original applications have been dismised by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal on 18-7-94 and hence, the Petitioners cannot come forward for the same relief as a claim in their industrial dispute for adjudication before this Tribunal . In support of that contention, the Respondent has filed the xerox copy of the common order passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal , Madras Bench on 18-7-94 . In that order, the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal has observed that the Petitioners were engaged only on piece rate basis by the Southern Railway management and they have not worked as daily rated casual workers on any project and the Petitioners have not established their case that they are project Casual Labourers who are entitled to be covered by the scheme drawn up in pursuance of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and they have not fallen in the same category as Casual Labourers engaged in Trichy division . It is further observed in that order by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal that these persons were engaged occasionally depending on reporting of wagons sick and they were not engaged continuously under the detailed supervision of railways . So from this it is seen that this issue has already been dealt with by another forum and a decision has been given by 3506

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 3 , 2003/VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

[PART 11- SEC . 3 (ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 9 अप्रैल, 2003

" 1. Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Patiala in dismissing the services of Shri R.S. Bagga, Cashier , w.e.f. 27-02-91 is justified? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?

2. Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Patiala in not paying subsistence allowance to shri R.S. Bagga for suspension period is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

का. आ. 1369.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्ट्रेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-कम-लेबर कोर्ट , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या केस नं. 54/92 को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 09-04-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/25/92- आई. आर. ( बी. 1 ) ]

अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 9th April , 2003

3 S.O. 1369. - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Case No. 54/92) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of Patiala and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 09-04-2003 .

[No. L- 12012/25/ 92- IR (B- I) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

SHRI S. M. GOEL

Presiding Officer:

Case No. 54/92

General Secretary State Bank of Patiala Staff Union , 3135

....Applicant

Sector-22- D, Chandigarh .

Versus

2. In the claim statement it is pleaded by the workman that he got a loan for the constructions of house and submitted a sale deed as equitable mortgage ,. The construction of the house was not completed and it was creating problems like sewerage and on account of flow or rain water entered into the house , he sought the branch manager , Model Town Branch for grant of necessary permission for the sale of this house . The permission was duly recommended by the Branch Manager on the same daybut even after a year no reply was received from the Head Office , to save his family from the diseases the workman had to sell half portion of the house for a condideration of Rs . 1,45,000 and Rs . 15,000 from this amount was deposited by the workman in the loan account . The bank issued a charge sheet on a false and frivolous complaint that the workman had stolen the title deed of the house and then sold the house but the sale deed was in the safe custody of the branch manager and the workman did not have any access to the sale deed and the question of stealing the sale deed did not arise and the charge of the bank istotally false and it is never admitted by the workman before the enquiry officer that he had stolen the title deed from the custody of the branch manager . It is further submitted that the workman was not given an opportunity ofdefence. The workman only admitted before the enquiry officer that half portion of the house was sold and the proceeds thereof were reinvested on the same house for its reconstruction and renovation . It is also submitted that the enquiry is also bad as no subsistence allowance was paid during the enquiry proceedings . Thus the workman has prayed that the enquiry be vitiated and the workman be reinstated in service with full backwages and other benefits.

General Manager , State Bank of Patiala, The Mall Patiala

.....Respondent

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Workman : Shri Gurdeep Singh

For the Management : Shri N.K. Zakhmi

AWARD

(Passed on 31-3-2003 )

The Central Govt . vide notification No. L - 12012/25/ 92- IR(B -3 ) dated 1st of June , 1992 has referred the following disputeto this Tribunal for adjudication :

3. In the written statement the management has stated that workman raised a loan of Rs . 1,10,000/- from the State Bank of Patiala for construction of a house and depositedwiththe branch original title deed for creating an equitable mortgage of the plot as collateral security . The workman disposed of half portion of his house and thus the workman committed a gross misconduct . The workman was issued a charge sheet and reply was submitted by the workman saying that he had to sell the halfportion ofhis house due to his family circumstances . The enquiry officer was appointed and during the enquiry theworkman voluntarily and unconditionally admitted the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

charge containing in the charge sheet dated 12-5-1990 and in view ofthe admission , the enquiry officer concluded the enquiry and submitted the report to the management and the disciplinary authority after considering the reply of show cause notice , the penalty of dismissal from service was awarded and the action of the management in dismissing the service of the workman is legal and just and the workman is not entitled to any relief in this reference. It is also submitted that subsistence allowance of the workman wasadjusted towards his loan acant .

4. In evidence, the workman filed bedavit Ex. W1 and he was also cross - examinedby the management. The → management in rebuttal produced the anidavit Ex . Ml of R.S. Sethi who has also tendered documents Ex . M2 to M20 consisting the entire enquiry proceedings .

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire evidence and record consisting of enquiry proceedings .

6. Before proceedings with the findings Lwill like to state the change which R.S. Bagga workman is faced in the departmental proceedings which is as follows :

"That during the year 1987 you raised a demand loan of Rs . 10,000/- through our Patiala (GINS ) branch for construction of a house and deposited with the branch original title deed of plot No. 41 , Green Lehal Colony, Patiala for creating an equitable mortgage of the said plecollateral security . After the transfer ofthe an from the branch of Sector 22 -D , Chandig of the respondent Bank to Patiala (Model Town) branch, the aforesaid title deed was collected on4-7-1989 from Patiala (GDNS) branch through Sh . A.S. Kapoor , Head Clerk , who handed over the same to Shri V.P. Malhotra, the Branch Manager , and Shri Malhotra kept the same in his drawer for the time being. But the workman surreptitiously removed the titledeed from the table drawer of Shri Malhotra and disposed of half portion of his house , constructed after raising demand loan of Rs . 1,10,000/- under bank's housing scheme on 6-10-1989 to one Sh . Paramjit Singh Bhuller and Smt. Tarwinder Kaur without obtaining any permission of the Bank to do so as required in terms of para IV(f) and XII of the sanction letter No. ZMP/ 1602 dated 3-4-87 . The workman thus did acts prejudicial to the interests of the Bank, which tantamount to gross misconduct in terms of Clause 19.5 (d) of the Bipartite Settlement 1966."

7. Thus in the enquiry it has to be considered as to whether the workman surreptitiously removed the sale deed against which he had raised a loan of Rs . 1,10,000/- from the bank and again sold the property to Shri Paramjit Singh Bhullar and Smt . Tarwinder Kaur on 6-10-1989 and thus causing a loss to the bank and thus defrauded the bank .

8. The departmental enquiry was conducted by

3507

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 3 , 2003/वैशाख 13 , 1925

Shri R.S. Sethi , The bank's presenting officer was Shri P.K. Bansal . When the enquiry started, the workman was asked by the Enquiry Officer as to whether he admit or deny the charges. In reply, the workman stated that he was unable togive any reply with regard to the charges in the absence. of the representative of the workman upon where the enquiry officer told the workman that the charge sheet was served upon him and he was to admit or deny the charges and the representative is only to defend him whereupon theworkmanagain requested the enquiry officer that hebe given a chance to nominate the representative and then alone he will admit or deny the charges and thus the proceedings were adjourned to 10-9-1990. On 10-9-1990, the workman stated that he wanted to nominate Shri B.L. Sharma, General Secretary State Bank of Patiala StaffUnion (Punjab ) Regd. (Since retired from the service'of the bank) to represent him in the enquiry whereupon the Bank's presenting officer produced a certificate dated 31-8-1990 from Manager Model Town Patiala Branch stating that the workman had remitted his subscription from his salary in the month ofJuly 1990 to State Bank of Patiala Employees Union Regd. and Recognised and no request from Shri Bagga for change of his Union has been received by Manager , Model Town Patiala Branch till date and thus the workman was denied his representation by Shri B.L. Sharma bythe enquiry officer in terms ofclause 19:12 of the Bipartite Settlement 1966 as the workman was a member of the Union other than the one to whom Shri B.L. Sharma represented . Thereupon Shri Bagga requested the enquiry officer that he be allowed to be defended by a lawyer . He was also denied the assistance of a lawyer on the plea that there is no provision and as such he may seek permission from the disciplinary authority . The leamed counsel for the workman has drawn my attention to clause 19 : 12 of the Bipartite Settlement which reads as follows :

" 19:12 : The procedure in such cases shall be as follows:

(y) Where the employee is not a member of any trade union ofbank employees on the aforesaid date , by a representative of a registered trade Union of employees of the bank in which he is employed " ;

9. The learned counsel for the workman has argued that 19: 12 (y) the worst possible is that the employee is not the member of any trade union even than he may be defended by a representative of registered trade union of the employees of the bank in which he was employed . The learned counsel has further argued that adittedly B.L. Sharma was General Secretary of the State Bank of Patiala StaffUnion (Pb .) Regd. (since retired from the service of the bank) and therefore , his services should not have been denied by the enquiry officer if the workman had prayed for, he has argued that the workman could not defend himselfproperly during the enquiry proceedings therefore, they are faulty one .

3508

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

10. In my opinion , this argument of the learned counsel for the workman may not weigh much because this clause apply only when 19:12 (x ) is not applicable. Clause 19:12 (x) of the B.P. Settlement states that an employee may be represented by a representative of a registered trade Union of bank employees of which he is a member, Clause (y) apply where he is not a member of any trade Union . Here in this case Shri R.S. Bagga was subscribing to State Bank of Patiala Employees Union Regd. and recognised . Shri B.L. Sharma was not the General Secretary of this union , therefore , the enquiry officer committed no error in denying the representation by Shri B.L. Sharma .

11. Secondly , it has been argued by the learned counsel for the workman that there is no evidence on record thatShri R.S. Bagga surreptitiously removed the documents from the drawer of the bank authority . In the charge sheet it has not been stated as to on what date and time , this removal was committed and nor in the enquiry any witness worth the name has been produced to substantiate this allegation . He has argued that only on the basis of a so called confession by the workman , the workman has been punished. The learned counsel for the bank has argued on the other hand that the confession was made by the workman voluntarily and without any pressure and , therefore , the charges against the workman were proved.

12. I have considered these arguments of the learned counsels for the parties . There is no narration in the charges as to on which date and time the removal of the sale deed took place . There was also no report of such incident then and there by any such authorities from whose drawer the alleged removal took place and nor it was proved by any witness during the enquiry proceedings . Therefore , just to hold guilty the workman only on the basis of his confession in such a serious matter without any report and without any date and time can not be taken to be proof of alleged occurrence. It has also been pointed out to me during the arguments by the learned counsel for the workman that when the alleged removal of the sale deed took place the workman was employed at another branch : At the time of the said removal, the workman was employed at State Bank ofPatiala Model Town Branch Patiala while the sale deed was surreptitiously removed from the drawer of the Branch Manager (GDNS) branch . In my considered opinion , there should have been some independant evidence to bring home the charges against the workman and only on the basis of his confession , the charges should not have been found to be proved.

13. It has also been argud by the learned counsel for the workman that the appellate authority did not give the workman personal hearing before passing the order . He has drawn my attention to the orders of the apellate authority. On the other hand the learned counsel for the bank has argued that the disciplinary authority had given

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] a personal hearing to the workman. The workman had also confessed to the charges . Therefore , if the appellate authority had not given the personal hearing to the workman , no prejudice was caused to him. The learned counsel for the workman has relied on the authorites reported in 1986(2) SLR 608, ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court and 1994( 1 ) SLR page 131 and 1992 ( 1 ) SER 250 ofthe Punjab and Haryana High Court . Contrary to the aforesaid case laws , the learned counsel for the management has not submitted any case

C 14.1 gone through the case laws relied upon by the counsel for the workman . The Hon'ble Supreme Court inRam Chander Vs. Union of India and other had laid down in paras 5 , 9 and 24 of this judgment that appellate anority is under an obligation to record reasons for his decision , fair play as justice also requires the personnal hearing before passing the order . Mechanical reproducti of phraseology is not sufficient . In my opinion natural justice has also not been done to the workman in the present case anne workman was not given the personal hearing by the appellate authority and on this account also the departmental enquiry is liable to be vitiated.

15. Last of all , the learned counsel for the workman has argued that the workman could not defend himself because he was not paid the subsistence allowance . The learned counsel for the workman had relied on the following caselaws:

1. 2003 ( 1 ) L.L.J. page 495 State -anjab and Others and K. K. Sharma .

2. AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1416 Capt . M. Paul Vs. BharatGold Mines Ltd. and Another .

3. Jagdamba Parshad Shukla Vs. State of U.P. 16. In reply the learned counsel for the bank has not submitted any case law , instead he has drawn my attention to the bank papers which relates to the March 1990 to February 1991. In these documents it appears that amount was paid to Shri R. S. Bagga through account but was adjusted towards his provident fund , festival loan , consumer loan, flow loan, house loan and other loans and thus he was either not paid any single penny or was paid very meagure amount . The respondent bank in its written statement in para 16 has also admitted that the subsistence allowance ofthe workman was adjusted towards his loan account .

17. In my considered opinion , the subsistence allowance should not have been adjusted towards loan etc. subsistence allowance is paid for the survival of the defaulting employees . By adjusting the subsistence allowance towards the loans monthwise , the bank has thus deprived the workman not only his survival but also the facts that he could not defend himself in the absence of 3509 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2003/वैशाख 13, 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT . INDUSTRIAL ? TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI S. M. GOEL

CASE NO. ID 133/92

any payment of the subsistence allowance . The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held in AIR 1999 page 1416 mentioned above, that non -payment of subsistence allowance during the suspension period is violative ofFundamental Right to life which also caused the employee who is mable to undertake journey to attend departmental proceedings and thus the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided to vitiate the departmental proceedings.

KotliDistt. Sirsa-125055

Ms. Balwinder Devi, Village Suchan -Applicant

Vs.

Chairman Hissar Sirsa Kshetriya

18. I am also of the opinion that the valuable right of the workman to defend himself during the enquiry was impaired because of the fact that the workman was not paid the subsistence allowance .

Gramin Bank Head Office Dabra

-Respondent

Chowk, Hissar-1250055.

REPRESENTATIVES :

19. It is also pertinent to mention here that the bank has also not demanded to prove the charges in this Court either in the written statement or even during the cou arguments. of

Forthe Workman Shri R. K. Singh

Forthe Management Shri Satya Narayan Sharma

(Passed on 24-3-2003)

20. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I thus hold that the departmental proceedings are vitiated as the infringe theprinciple ofnatural justice. Resultantly the ord ofdismissal is setaside . The workman is thus ordered tobe reinstated in service with full backwages and other consequential benefits including seniorityetc. The reference is answered accordingly .Appropriate Authority beinformed.

S. M. GOEL, PresidingOfficer

Chandigarh.

TheCentralGovt Ministry of Labour vide. Notification No. L- 12012/ 161 /92-1.R. (B.3 ) dated 23rd November, 1992 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

31-3-2003

नईदिल्ली, 9 अप्रैल, 2003

"Whether the action of the management of Hissar Sirsa Kshetriya Gramin Bank, in terminating the services ofMiss Balwinder Devi w.ef. 8-2-1991 was justified? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from what date ?"

का. आ. 1370.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार हिसार सिरसा क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों औरउनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- कम- लेबर कोर्ट, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या केस नं . आई . डी. 133/92 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-4-2003 को प्राप्त हुआं था ।

[सं. एल-12012/161/92- आई. आर. (बी. 1 ) ]

अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 9th April , 2003

S.O. 1370.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Case No. ID 133/92) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relations of the management of Hissar Sirsa Kshetriya Gramin Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 8-4-2003.

[No. L- 12012/161/92 - IR (B-I) ]

2. The brief facts of the case according to the applicant are that she was employed by the Management.. as junior clerk-cum- cashier w.e.f. 9-7-1988 and she was relieved for training at Lucknow on -1998 and after completion of the training she joined the bank on 19-9-1988. It is pleaded that the Branch Manager borrowed Rs. 500/-from the workman and again on 15-4-1989 Rs. 700/-which is contrary to the rules ofthe bank. On her. refusal he issued a show cause notice dated 30-6-89 . It is further pleaded that Branch Manager had been compelling the applicant to come before the office time due to personal grudge and was sent to Sirsa for depositing cash in Punjab National Bank which is clear case of victimisation. The respondent branch manager prepared a letter dated 8-7-89 and the same was delivered to the applicant on 9-7-89.ak her residents extending the probation period after one year It is pleaded that branch manager was not competent to extend the probation period . The applicant was relieved from duty without any jurisdiction on 7-8-89 by the branch manager and a cheque for twenty thousand was issue which the applicant refused. It is further pleaded that action of the management relieving her on 7-8-89 is clearly violation AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

115491103-15 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

3510

of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. As rules have not been complied by the management . It is further pleaded that in reply to her notice through A.L.C. Rohtak termination order dated 8-2-91 was sent to the applicant which is void and arbitrary. It is prayed that applicant be reinstated in service w.e.f. 8-8-89 with back wages and continuity of service.

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] also other minor charges like absenting from duty on various dates unauthorisedly and other minor miscondut . The conduct ofthe applicant was not upto the mark , even during her probation period. Thus in my considered opinion, Section 11 -A can not be made applicable in such like cases . Therefore , the applicant is not entitled to any relief in the present reference . The reference is answered against the applicant , and returned to the appropriate authority for information.

S. M. GOEL, Presiding Officer Chandigarh.

24-3-2003

3. In written statement the management denied all the everments made in the claim statement and stated that posting is made as per the workload and urgent need basis . The applicant had also executed service agreement dated 16-7-88. The applicant violated the rules and regulations of the bank for which she was served with a charge sheet dated 17-11-89 by the Disciplinary Authority containing specific charges and proper departmental enquiry was conducted within the frame work of model rules framed for the employees of the bank . Full opportunity was given to the applicant to defend herself. Proper show cause notice was served on 18-7-90 before awarding punishment and penality was imposed vide letter dated 8-2-91 and the punshiment was also confirmed by the board of the bank. The extension in the probation period of the applicant was done keeping in view her performance and it is pleaded that the action of the managment is fully legal and justified.

4.Arguments have been heard on the fairness ofthe enquiry . The management placed on record the complete enquiry file which I have thoroughly gone through with theassistance of the learned representatives of the parties . It is very much mentioned in the enquiry proceedings that applicant Balwinder Devi has not participated in the enquiry despite many opportunities and notices given to her and the enquiry officer had to proceed with the enquiry in the absence of the applicant . She did not care to attend the enquiry proceedings despite intimations . It is argued by the learend representatives of the managment that there was no option left with the enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry experte against the applicant as she was not willing to participate in the enquiry. The witnesses of the management have been examined in absence of the applicant . I find no infirmity in the conduction of enquiry proceedings against the applicant as it is the applicant who chose not to attend the enquiry proceedings of her own . No fault can be found on the part of the managment to proceed with the punishment . The arguments advanced bythe learned representative of the workman that probation period was extended after one year . This is not the dispute in this reference as services of the applicant have been terminated after holding detailed departmental enquiry . The learned representative of the workman has prayed for intervention of this Tribunal under Section 11 -A of the ID Act in the matter of punishment on the plea that the punishment of dismissal froın service is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct on the part of the applicant . The applicant was still on probation at the time of her termination , and the punishment was imposed upon her as she refused to obey the orders of the Branch Manager and नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल , 2003

.आ. 1371.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17- के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार साऊथ सैन्ट्रल रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी. आर. नं . 106/99 ) को प्रकाशितं करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को10-4-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-41012/157/99-आई. आर. ( बी.-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th April , 2003

S.O. 1371. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central. Government hereby publishes the award (C.R. No. 106/1999), of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of South Central Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-04-2003 .

[No. L-41012/ 157/99 - IR (B- 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT "SHRAM SADAN " III MAIN, II CROSS , II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE Dated, the 3rd April 2003

PRESENT:

HON'BLE SHRI V.N. KULKARNI , B.Com , LLB , PRESIDING OFFICER CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT BANGALORE .

{

3511

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2003/वैशाख 13 , 1925

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

C.R. NO . 106/1999

(7) 31st May 1988 to 1-6-1988 (2days)

II PARTY

I PARTY

TheDivisional

Shri R. Srinivasan ,

RailwayManager

Ex-Chalasi,

South Central

South Central Railway

Railway, HUBLI

6. The first party workman gave detailed reply and denied all the allegations . Enquiry was initiated and the enquiry is not fair and proper . Departmental proceedings are not correctly held and the action ofthe management is not correct . The punishment imposed is harsh . Workman for these reasons and for some other reasons has prayed to pass award in his favour.

C/ o , Shri M.S. Ananaramu , Advocatė, No. 11 , 1st Floor, 4th Cross , R. K. Puram , SC Road Cross ,

7. Against this the case of the Management in brief is as under .

Opp . to Movieland Theatre, BANGALORE-560009

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause(d) of sub -section 2A of the Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute videorder No. L-41012/ 157/99 - IR (B.1 ) dated 5th October 1999 for adjudication on the following schedule :-

THE SCHEDULE

8. It is the case of the Management that the firts party workman was basent for a period of 125 days unauthorisedly from April 1985 to 1986 and the management took lenient view and reinstated him in service with effect from 15-8-1987 . During 1987 he again remained unauthorisedly absent for a period of 126 days and again for the period from October 1987 to May 1988. Details are given in the Counter. Enquiry is fair and proper and the action of the management is correct . All the allegations made by the workman are not correct . Management for these reasons and for some other reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

"Whether the action of the management of South Central Railway in removing Shri R. Srinivasan , Khalasi , from service w.e.f. 30-10-89 is legal and justified. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

9. It is seen from the record that the management examined MW1 . He has given evidence saying that he has conducted enquiry. He has stated that he read over the charge sheet to the workman and the admitted that he has understand the same . He has also admitted that he was absent .

2.The first party was working with the Second Party management as Khalalsi . He was removed from service w.e.f. 30th October 1989 and therefore, Industrial Dispute is raised.

10. Workman got examined himself.

3. Parties appeared and filed Claim Statement and Counter respectively .

4. The case ofthe first party in brief is as follows .

5. Charge sheet was given to the workman saying that he was unauthorisedly absent from duty as under :

(1 ) 8th October 1987 to 11th October 1987 (3 days)

11. It is seen from the records that this Tribunal by its order dated 12th December 2002 has answered Preliminary Issue holding that the Domestic Enquiry is not Fair and Proper . The main conter.n of the worman is that he was not keeping good health and he applied leave on medical ground with medical certificate but the management has not considered the same and initiated enquiry. In order to appreciate the contention of the workman lest us see what is the evidence adduced by the management .

(2) 15th October 1987 to 31st October 1987 (15 days)

(3) 8th November 1987 to 20th November 1987 (19days)

12. In the instant case this tribunal has held that the enquiry is not fair and proper . In view ofthis there is heavy burden on the management to rebut the contentions put forth by the workman but unforunately the management has not examined any witnesses after giving findings on Preliminary Issue .

(4) 25th November 1987 to 30th November 1987 (5days)

(5) 6th December 1987 to 31st January 1988 (37days)

(6) 27th April 1980 to 10th May 1988 (14 days)

13. Considering all this I am of the opinion that in the given circumstances the punishment of dismissal is too harsh. This is a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section 11A of the ID Act . Accordingly 1 proceed to pass the following Order:

3512

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2003/VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

ORDER

The reference is partly allowed and the management is directed to reinstate the workman to his original post , which he was holding on the date of his removal from service . No other benefits are awarded.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 3rd April 2003).

V. N. KULKARNI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल, 2003

का. आ. 1372.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार वैलिंगटन कैन्टोन्मेन्ट बोर्ड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 171/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-4-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-13012/2/99- आई. आर. ( डी.यू. ) ]

कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th April, 2003

S.O. 1372. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 171/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Wellington Cantonment Board and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-04-2003 .

[No. L- 13012/2/99 - IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAI -CUM- LABOUR COURT, CHENΝΑΙ 1 riday, the 4th April 2003

PRESENT : K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ΝΟ . 171/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D.No. 169/99) [In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) ofSub- section ( 1 ) and Sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Workman Sri V. Mayavan and the Executive Officer , Wellington Cantonment Board. ]

BETWEEN

: I Party/Workman Sri V. Mayavan

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] AND

: II Party/Management The Executive Officer , Wellington Cantonment BoardNilgiris.

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman

Sri T. Ramkumar and

P. Chandrasekaran, Advocates

Forthe Management : M/s . King & Partridge Advocates .

TheGovt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) ofSub- section ( 1 ) and Sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , have referred the concerned dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L- 13012/2/99/IR( DU ) dated 11- 08-99.

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai , where the same was taken on file as I.D. No. 169/99 . When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal , Government of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case also from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication . On receipt of records from that Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , this casehas been taken on file as I.D. No. 171/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side , informing them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal , with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 05-02-2001 with their respective parties and to prosecute this case further. Accordingly, the learned counsel on either side along with their respective parties have appeared and prosecuted this case further . The Claim Statement and Counter Statement ofthe respective parties were filed earlier before the Tamil Nadu. State Industrial Tribunal , when the matter was pending before that Tribunal for adjudication.

Upon perusing the Counter Statement , claim Statement , the other material papers on record , after hearing the learned counsel for the II Party /Management alone and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration , this Tribunal has passed on merits , the following:-

AWARD

TheIndustrial Dispute referred to in the above order ofreference by the Central Govt . for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :-

"Whether the action of the management of M /s . Wellington Cantonment Board, Nilgiris in terminating the services ofShri V. Mayavan is legal and justified? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled ? " 3513

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2003/वैशाख 13, 1925

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2.. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the I Party/Workman Sri V. Mayavan (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) are briefly as follows :-

Administrative Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition . Then the Petitioner has raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) , Chennai . The conciliation ended in a failure . On submission of failure ofconciliation report by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) , the Govt. has referred this dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal . The Wellington Cantonment Board employed more than 100 employees . Theprovisions of Industrial Disputes Act is attracted to the Respondent/Management . Before terminating the Petitioner from service, the conditions precedent to retrench any other workmen were not followed by the Respondent. It is in violation of the provisions of Section 25N of the Act . Before terminating the Petitioner himself, the Respondent/Management should have obtained prior permission from the Govt. The act of the Respondent amounts to gross abuse of power and authority. Prior to the termination of service , the Petitioner had completed 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months . Since the Respondent has not followed the conditions precedent to retrenchmentthe termination is illegal and the Petitioner is deemed to be continued in service . The action of the Respondent is in violation ofArticle 21 of the Constitution ofIndia.Hence , it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass an Award directing the Respondent/ Management to reinstate the Petitioner in service with back wages, continuity of service and other consequent and attendent benefits .

3. The avermants in the Counter Statement filed by the II Party/Management Wellington Cantonment Board, Nilgiris ( hereinafter referes to as Respondent ) are briefly asfollows:-

The Petitioner is put to strict proof of the averments in the Claim Statement. He was engaged intermittently as a casual Safaiwala on daily wage basis as and when required bythe Military authorities for cleaning septic tanks in the Military area . The averment of the Petitioner that he has putin four years continuous service is false. Whenever he was engaged by the Respondent , the same was compensated by paying Rs . 50 /- as wages per day . The Petitioner has not acquired permanent status as declined in the Claim Statement . No permanent post exists in the Respondent/Management for the purpose ofcleaning sepic tanks . The work done by the Petitioner is not perennial in nature and any averments contra to the same is denied. The question of regularisation of service does not arise at all . When regular vacancy for permanent post arose, the same will be filled up in accordance with rules . Vacancies will be notified to the Employment Exchange with a request to sponsor suitable candidates, interview will be conducted and suitable candidates will be selected on the basis of merit , age etc. If the Petitioner had necessary qualification , he would have been selected . Hence the contention of the The Petitioner joined the service of Wellington Cantonment Board as a casual employee i.e. Safaiwala on daily wages basis in June , 1994. The Niligiris District Employment Exchange has also sponsored his name to thispost and accordingly, the Petitioner was appointed as a casual employee. He had put up continuous service for more than four years . He was paid wages of Rs . 50/- per day. During his service he has discharged his duties sincerely, diligently and efficiently and he had an unblemished record of service . He has acquired the status ofpermanent worker under the scheme as provided in the memorandum No. F. 4(3 )/89/B(Civ) dated 31-01-1991 . The safaiwala post is a permanent post and perennial in nature. From the date ofjoining the service in that permanent post, the Petitioner doing the work till the date of his termination. Instead of considering the Petitioner for regularisation , i.e. to appoint the Petitioner in the permanent post , the Respondent/Management had approached the District Employment Exchange to sponsor the candidates to fill up thatpermanent post of Safaiwala. Accordingly, the District Employement Exchange has sponsored the candidates to fill up the said post by sending a list containing the names of the persons sponsored along with the name of the Petitioner. The Respondent/Management has not called the Petitioner to appear for an interview to fill up the post in which he has already occupied. The Respondent/ Management has acted with an ulterior motive and mala- fide intention in ignoring the Petitioner's service rendered continuously in the permanent post. But the Respndent has arbitrarily filled up the post by a fresh candidates . One of the workers who had been working along with the Petitioner as a casual worker on daily wage basis was offered with an appointment for a permanent post which is adiscrimination against the Petitioner . It is unjustified and unfair . The Petitioner represented orally to the Respondent to consider him for the permanency in the post he was working. Since the Respondent has not given any concrete proposal, the Petitioner made a representative to the Head Office and other higher official on several occasions . But no fruitful reply was received by the Petitioner . Because of the Petitioner's continuous representations , the Respondent had terminated the Petitioner from service illegally in an arbitrary and unjustified manner on 30-9-97. No opportunity was given to the Petitioner before terminating his service . No notice was given and no enquiry. was conducted. The termination is illegal. So the Petitioner filed an O.A.No. 1057/97 before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal along with other such workmen to get an injunction for the termination from service . But the said petition was dismissed on 6-3-98 stating that the Central 3514

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2003/VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

Petitioner that Respondent has acted with an ulterior motive, and mala fide intention is baseless and incorrect . The Respondent has not acted in an arbitrary manner . No worker on casual basis was offered with appointment for a permanent post discriminating the Petitioner . The regular postof safaiwala was held from the candidates sponsored bytheEmployment Exchange in accordance with law . Since the Petitioner has not put continuous service as defined under Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 the question of issuing notice and conducting enquiry does not arise . Temporary engagement of casual labourers by theRespondent occasionally will not vest any right on the Petitioner to claim benefits under Industrial Disputes Act . Temporary contractual engagement of Casual Labourers , ifatall will only fall within the ambit ofSection 2 (00 )2(bb ) of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 which is an exception to retrenchment. Hence the non - employment of the Petitioner/ Workman did not amount to retrenchment and he cannot claim any relief from the Respondent under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 much less retrenchment compensation ofre-employment . There is no vacancy or post available with the Respondent to offer employment to the Petitioner . The claim of the Petitioner/Workman is stale barred by laches and as such the Petitioner is not entitled to seek benefits under Industrial Disputes Act . Under such circumstances , it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the industrial dispute raised by the Petitioner with exemplary cost .

4. Though the Petitioner has filed an additional Claim Statement subsequently , for which an additional Counter Statement has also been filed by Respondent/ Management , the authorised representative for the Petitioner had subsequently made an endorsement stating that " he is not pressing the additional Claim Statement and theearlier Claim Statement alone may kindly be considered as the Petitioner's Claim Statement" . When the matter was taken up for enquiry finally after having adjourned the case for very many hearings, an advocate comes on record by filing his vakalat for the 1 Party on 25-03-2003 and on his request , the case was adjouned to 3-4-2003 for enquiry finally . On that day , the counsel for the I Party/Petitioner seeks further adjournment stating that he was not ready for the enquiry. Since the matter is an old one as the reference for adjudicating this industrial dispute has been made by the order of Govt . dated 3-8-99 and sufficient accommodation has been given for all these days for the Petitioner and his erstwhile authorised representative and subsequently for the counsel who entered appearance for the Petitioner to be ready for the enquiry finally on 3-4-2003 and further adjournments sought for by the counsel for Respondent has not been granted . The counsel for the 11 Party/ Management present and ready and advanced his arguments and the case has been reserved

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] for orders to be passed on merits on this date i.e. 4-4-2003 with the available materials and records .

5. The point for my consideration is-

"Whether the action of the management of M/ s. Wellington Cantonment Board , Nilgiris in terminating the services of Shri V. Mayavan is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

Point:

( It is admitted that the Petitioner /Workman Sri V. Mayavan was engaged by the Respondent/ Management as a concerned employee on daily wages of Rs. 50/- per day. It is the definite contention ofthe Petitioner inhis Claim Statement that he had joined the service of the Respondent in June , 1994 and had put in continuous service for more than four years and his services have been terminated on 30-9-97 . It is his further contention that the post for which he was engaged is a permanent post for the work which is perennial in nature and that without considering his services for regularisation , the Respondent approached the District Employment Exchange to sponsor the candidates to fill up the permanent post and in the list of candidates sponsoredby the District Employment Exchange , his name was also there . But , he was not called by the Respondent to appear for interview and that ignoring his continuous service in that post, one of the workers who has been working along with him as a casual worker on daily wage basis was offered an appointment for thatpermanent post, discriminating the Petitioner and that without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity and without conducing any enquiry, the Respondent has terminated his service in an arbitrary manner and his services have been terminated without obtaining permission from the Govt. under Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. It is his further contention that he had completed 240 days of service prior to his termination in the preceding 12 calendar months and the Respondent has not followed the conditions precedent before terminating his service .

Forall these averments , the Petitioner has not chosen to let in oral or documentary evidence before this Tribunal when especially, the Respondent/ Management has taken a definite stand in their Counter Statement that the averments in the Claim Statement of the Petitioner have to beproved strictly.

6. It is definite contention of the Respondent/ Management in their Counter Statement that the Petitioner was engaged intermittently as a casual safaiwala on daily wagebasis as and when required by the military authorities 3515 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3, 2003/वैशाख 13 , 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

his termination. No proof of receipt of salary for wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for these period was produced by the workman . On this ground alone, theAward is liable to be set aside.

for cleaning septic tanks in the military area and that no permanent post exists in the Respondent for the purpose ofcleaning septic tanks and the work done by the Petitioner is not perennial in nature and the Petitioner has not acquired a permanent status as he has not put in four years continuous service as alleged by him . To disprove this contention the petitioner has not come forward to let in any oral or documentary evidence and to prove his averments in the Claim Statement . It is further contended in the Counter Statement that if the Petitioner had the necessary qualification , he would have been selected in the interview and no worker on casual basis was offered withan appointment for the permanent post discriminating the Petitioner .

These decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management.It is not denied that the Petitioner was engaged as a casual safaiwala on daily wage basis for cleaning septic tanks in the military areas . The contention of the Respondent/Management that no permanent post exists in the Respondent for the purpose ofcleaning septic tanks and the work done by the Petitioner is not perennial in nature has not been denied as incorrect or false . For the averment of the Petitioner, in his Claim Statement that the non- employment of the Petitioner, amounts to retrenchment has not been praved with : substantial acceptable evidence . In the absence of proof for the claim of the Petitioner that he has put in continuous service as defined under Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the question of issuing notice, payment ofnoticepay and compensation and conducting an enquiry does not arise . As rightly contended by the learned causal for the Respondent that the temporary engagement of Casual Labourers occasionally by the Respondent will not vest any right on the Petitioner to claim benefits under the Industrial Dispūtes Act , 1947 alleging contravention of Section 25N ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. So , under such circumstances , when there is no question of termination of service ofthe Petitioner, who was admittedly engaged as a casual employee on daily wages for the work ofnon - permanent nature and as and when it is required , it cannot be said that the action of the management of Wellington Cantonment Board, Nilgiris in non - engaging the Petitioner in service is illegal and unjustified . Hence, the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief. Thus , the point is answered accordingly.

8. In the result, an Award is passed holding that the concerned workman Sri V. Mayavan is not entitled for any relief. No Cost .

7. Though it is the specific averment of the Petitioner in his Claim Statement that he had completed 240 daysofservice in the preceding 12 calendar months of the termination ofhis service , he has not let in any acceptable oral or documentary evidence , before this Tribunal to substantiate his claim . The learned counsel for the Respondent/Management has relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case reported as 2002 III LLJ 1111 between Essen Deiniki and Rajiv Kumar and has argued that to claim the benefit under Section 25B (2) and 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , it was for the workman to prove that he actually workedunder the employer for not less than 240 days and the Petitioner has miserably failed to do the same with acceptable evidence in this case and hence, the above mentioned decision of the Supreme Court is squarely applicable to this case. In that case , the Supreme Court observed that " the proof of working for 240 days was on the employee. It is further held that " the requirement of the statute of240 days cannot be disputed and it is for the employee concerned toprove that he has infact completed 240 days in the last preceding 12 months period " . It is further observed by the Supreme Court in that case that the proof of working for 240 days is stated to be on the employee in the event ofany denial ofsuch vacuum." The Hon'ble Supreme Court in that decision has reliefupon the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case reported as 2002 1 LLJ 1053. In that earlier decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated as follows:-

(Dictated to the Stenographer , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court . onthis day the 4th April , 2003. )

K. KARTHIKEYAN , Presiding Officer

:None

Witnesses Examined on either side

:Nil

Exhibits marked

on either side

"In our opinion, the Tribunal was not right in placing the onus on the management without first determining on the basis ofcogent evidence that the Respondent had workedfor more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination. It was the caseofthe claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

3516

नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल, 2003

(14 of 1947), have referred the concerned dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L- 13012/4/99 /IR (DU ) dated 03-08-99.

का. आ. 1373.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार वैलिंगटन कैन्टोन्मेन्ट बोर्ड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 167/2001 को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-4-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-13012/4/99- आई. आर. ( डी.यू. ) ]

कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 10th April , 2003

S.O. 1373. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 167/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal , Labour Court , Chennai now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Wellington Cantonment Board and their workman , which was received bythe Central Government on 10-4-2003 .

This reference has been made earlier to Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai , where the same was taken on file as I.D. No. 163/99. When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal . Government of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case also from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication . On receipt of records from that Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , this case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 167/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side , informing them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal , with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 05-02-2001 with their respective parties and to prosecute this case further . Accordingly, the learned counsel on either side along with their respective parties have appeared and prosecuted this case further . The Claim statement and Counter Statement of the respective parties were filed earlier before the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , when the matter was pending before that Tribunal for adjudication .

[No. L- 13012/4/99 - IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNΝΑΙ

Upon perusing the Counter Statement, the other material papers on record , after hearing the learned counsel for the 11 Party/Management alone and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration , this Tribunal has passed on inerits , the following:-

Friday , the 4the April , 2003

AWARD

PRESENT :

K. Karthikeyan , Presiding Officer . INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 167/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I. D. No. 163/99)

TheIndustrial Dispute referred to in the above order ofreference by the Central Govt . for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows.-

"Whether the action of the management of M /s . Wellington Cantonment Board, Nilgirls in terminating the services ofShri P. Kumaran is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ? " (Inthe matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) ofSub - section ( 1 ) and Sub - section 2 (A ) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Workman Sri P. Kumaran and the Executive Officer , Wellington Cantonment Board . )

1 Party/Workman

BETWEEN : Sri P. Kuinaran:

2. The avernments in the Claim Stateinent filed by the I Party/Workman Sri P. Kumaran ( hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) are briefly as follows :-

AND

II Party/Management

2 : The Executive Officer, Wellington Cantoninent Board Nilgirls.

APPEARANCE :

Forthe Workman

Sri T. Ramkumar and P. Chandrasekaran , Advocates .

For the Management

M/s. King & Partridge Advocates.

The Petitioner joined the service of Wellington Cantonment Board as casual employee i.e. Safaiwala on daily wages basis in June, 1994. The Nilgiris District Employment Exchange has also sponsored his name to thispost and accordingly, the Petitioner was appointed as a casual employee . He had put up continuous service for more than four years . He was paid wages of Rs . 50 per day. During his service he has discharged his duties sincerely. diligently and efficiently and he had an unblemished record of service.He has acquired the status ofpermanent worker under the scheme as provided in the mernorandum No. F-4(3 )/89 /B (Civ) dated 31-01-1991 . The safaiwala post is a permanent post and perennial in nature . From the date of TheGovt. of India , Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3, 2003/वैशाख 13, 1925

3517

the conditions precedent to retrenchment the termination. isillegal and the Petitioner is deemed to be continued in service. The action of the Respondent is in violation of Article 21 ofthe Constitution of India . Hence, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass an Award directing the Respondent/Management to reinstate the Petitioner in service with back wages , continuity ofservice and other consequent and attendant benefits .

3. The avernments in the Counter Statement filed by the II Party/Management Wellington Cantonment Board, Nilgiris (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) are briefly as follows:-

The Petitioner is put to strict proof of the averments in the Claim Statement. He was engaged intermittently as a casual Safaiwala on daily wage basis as and when required by the Military authorities for cleaning septic tanks in the Military area. The averment of the Petitioner that he has put in four years continuous service is false . Whenever he was engaged by the Respondent , the same was compensated by paying Rs . 50 as wages per day. The Petitioner has not acquired permanent status as declined in the Claim Statement. No permanent post exists in the Respondent/Management for the purpose of cleaning septic tanks . The work done by the Petitioner is not perennial in nature and any averment contra to the same is denied. The question of regulation of service does not arise at all . When regular vacancy for permanent post arose, the same will be filled up in accordance with rules . Vacancies will be notified to the Employment Exchange with a request to sponsor suitable candidates, interview willbe conducted and suitable candidates will be selected onthebasis ofmerit, age etc. If the Petitioner had necessary qualification , he would have been selected . Hence the contention of the Petitioner that Respondent has acted with an ulterior motive and mala fide intention is baseless and incorrect. The Respondent has not in an arbitrary manner . No worker on casual basis was offered with appointment for a permanent post discriminating the Petitioner. The regular post of safaiwala was held from the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange in accordance with law . Since the Petitioner has not put continuous service as defined under section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the question of issuing notice and conducting enquiry does not arise. Temporary engagement of casual labourers by the Respondent occasionally will not vest any right on the Petitioner to claim benefits under Industrial Disputes Act. Temporary contractual engagement of Casual Labourers, if at all will onlyfallwithin the ambit of section 2(oo)2(bb ) of Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 which is an exception to retrenchment. Hence thenon-employment of the Petitioner /Workman did notamountto retrenchment and he cannot claim any relief from the Respondent under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 much less retrenchment compensation or re- employment. There is novacancy or post available with the Respondent joining the servie in that permanent post, the Petitioner doing the work till the date of his termination . Instead of considering the Petitioner for regularisation ie. to appoint the Petitioner in the permanent post, the Respondent/ Management has approached the District Employment Exchange to sponsor the candidates to fill up that permanent post of Safaiwala. Accordingly, the District Employment Exchange has sponsored the candidates to fill up the said post by sending a list containing the names ofthe persons sponsored along with the name of the Petitioner . The Respondent/Management has not called the Petitioner to appear for an interview to fill up the post in which he has already occupied. The Respondent/Management has acted with an ulterior motive and mala fide intention in ignoring the Petitioner's service rendered continuously in the permanent post . But the Respondent has arbitrarily filled up the postby a fresh candidates. One of the workers who has been working along with the Petitioaer as a casual worker on dailywage basis was offered with an appointment for a permanent post which is a discrimination against the Petitioner. It is unjustified and unfair . The Petitioner represented orally to the Respondent to consider him for the permanency in the post he was working . Since the Respondent has not given any concrete proposal, the Petitioner made a representation to the Head Office and other higher official on several occasions . But no fruitful reply was received by the Petitioner. Because of the Petitioner's continuous representations , the Respondent has terminated the Petitioner from service illegally in an arbitrary andunjustified manner on 30-9-97. No opportunity was given to the Petitioner before terminating his service. No notice was given and no enquiry was conducted. The termination is illegal . So the Petitioner filed an O.A. No. 1057/97 before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal along with other such workmen to get an injunction forthe termination from service . But the said petition was 'dismissed on 6-3-98 stating that the Central Administrative Tribunal has nojurisdiction to entertain this petition. Then the Petitioner has raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central), Chennai . The conciliation ended in a failure. On submission of failure of conciliation report by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), the Govt. has referred this dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal . The Wellington Cantonment Board employed more than 100 employees . The provisions of Industrial Disputes Act is attracted to the Respondent/ Management.Before terminating the Petitioner from service, the conditions precedent to retrench any other workman were not followed by the Respondent. It is in violation of theprovisions ofSection 25 N oftheAct . Before terminating the Petitioner himself, the Respondent/Management shouldhave obtained prior permission from the Govt. The act of the Respondent amounts to gross abuse of power and authority. Prior to the termination of service, the Petitioner had completed 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months. Since the Respondent has not followed

1154 G7/03-16 3518

THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] to offer employment to the Petitioner. The claim of the Petitioner/Workman is stale barred by laches and as such the Petitioner is not entitled to seek benefits under Industrial Disputes Act. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the industrial dispute raised by the Petitioner with exemplary cost .

(

Exchange , his name was also there . But, he was not called bytheRespondent to apear for interview and that ignoring his continuous service in that post, one of the workers who has been working along with him as a casual worker on daily wage basis was offered an appointment for that permanent post, discriminating the Petitioner and that without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity and without conducting any enquiry, the respondent has terminated his service in an arbitrary manner and his services have been terminated without obtaining permissionfrom the Govt. under section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is his further contention that he had completed 240 days of service prior to his termination in the preceding 12 calendar months and the Respondent has not followed the conditions precedent before terminating his service . For all these averments, the Petitioner has not chosen to let in oral or documentary evidence before this Tribunal when especially , the Respondent/Management has taken a definite stand in their Counter Statement that the averments in the Claim Statement of the Petitioner have to be proved strictly.

4. Though the Petitioner has filed an additional Claim Statement subsequently, for which an additional Counter Statement has also been filed by Respondent/ Management, the authorised representative for the Petitioner had subsequently made an endorsement stating that" he is not pressing the additional Claim Statement and the earlier Claim Statement alone may kindly be considered as the Petitioner's Claim Statement " . When the matter was taken up for enquiry finally after having adjourned the case for very many hearings , an advocate comes on record by filing his vakalat for the I Party on 25-3-2003 and on his request, the case was adjourned to 3-4-2003 for enquiry finally. On that day , the counsel for the I Party/Petitioner seeks further adjournment stating that he was not ready for the enquiry . Since the matter is an old one as the reference for adjudicating this industrial dispute has been made by the order of Govt. dated 3-8-99 and sufficient accommodation has been given for all these days for the Petitioner and his erstwhile authorised representative and subsequently for the counsel who entered appearance, for the Petitioner to be ready for the enquiry finally on 3-4-2003 and further adjournments sought for by the counsel for Respondent has not been granted , the counsel for the II Party /Management present and , ready and advanced his agruments and the case has been reserved for orders to be passed on merits on this date i.e. 4-4-2003 with the available materials and records.

5. The point for my consideration is-

6. It is the definite contention of the Respondent/ Management in their Counter Statement that the Petitioner was engaged intermittently as a casual safaiwala on daily wage basis as and when required by the military authorities for cleaning septic tanks in the military area and that no permanent post exists in the Respondent for the purpose ofcleaning septic tanks and the work done by the Petitioner is not perennial in nature and the Petitioner has not acquired permanent status as he has not put in four years continuous service as alleged by him . To disprove this contention the Petitioner has not come forward to let in any oral or documentary evidence and to prove his averments in the Claim Statement . It is further contended in the Counter Statement that if the Petitioner had the necessary qualification, he would have been selected in the interview and no worker on casual basis was offered with an appointment for the permanent post discriminating the Petitioner.

"Whether the action of the management of M/s . Wellington Cantonment Board, Nilgiris in terminating the services of Shri P. Kumaran is legal andjustified? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

Point:

It is admitted that the Petitioner/Workman Sri P. Kumaran was engaged by the Respondent/Management as a casual employee on daily wages of Rs . 50/- per day. It is the definite contention of the Petitioner in his Claim Statement that he had joined the service of the Respondent in June , 1994 and had put in continuous service for more than four years and his services have been terminated on 30-9-97. It is his further contention that the post for which he was engaged is a permanent post for the work which is perennial in nature and that without considering his . services for regularisation, the Respondent approached the district Employment Exchange to sponsor the candidates to fill up the permanent post and in the list of candidates sponsored by the District Employment

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2003 /वैशाख 13 , 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

the action of the management of Wellington Cantonment Board, Niigiris in non - engaging the Petitioner in service is illegal and unjustified . Hence, the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief. Thus , the point is answered accordingly.

8. In the result , an Award is passed holding that the concerned workman Sri T. Kumaran is not entitled for any relief. No Cost .

(Dictated to the Stenographer , transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 4th Aprii , 2003. )

applicable to this case. In that case, the Supreme Court observed that "the proof ofworking for 240 days was on the employee. " It is further held that "the requirement of the statute of240 days cannot be disputed and it is for the employee concerned to prove that he has in fact completed 240days in the last preceding 12 months period ". It is further observed by the Supreme Court in that case that theproof ofworking for 240 days is stated to be on the employee in the event ofany denial ofsuch factum " . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in that decision has relief upon the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case reported as 2002 1 LLJ 1053. In that earlier decision , the Hon'bie Supreme Court has stated as follows:---

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined : On either side :None Exhibits marked:- On either side : Nii नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल , 2003

का. आ. 1374.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार हैवी विककल फैक्ट्ररी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 81/2000 ) , को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-4-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था । "In our opinion, the Tribunal was not right in placing the onus on the mangement without first determining on the basis of cogent evidence that the Respondent had workedfor more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination. Itwas the case ofthe claimant that he had so worked but this cialm was denied by the appellant. It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination. No proof of receipt ofsalary for wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for these period was produced by the workman. On this ground alone, theAward is liable to be set aside. "

[सं. एल -14012/9/2000 - आई आर. ( डी. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 10th April , 2003

S.O. 1374.-in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Cantral Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 81/2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunai - cum - Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure , in the industriai dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofHeavy Vehicles Factory and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-4-2003.

[No. L- 14012/9 /2000- IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Wednesday, the 2nd April , 2003 PRESENT : K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 81/2000

(Inthe matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) ofSub-section ( 1 ) and Sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 ofthe IndustrialDisputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Workman Sri A. Kajendran and the Management ofthe GeneralManager, Heavy Vehicles Factory.) These decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are squarely applicable to the facts ofthe present case as rightiy contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/ Management .Itis not denied that the Petitioner was engaged as a casual safaiwala on daily wage basis for cleaning septic tanks in the military areas . The contention of the Respondent/Management that no permanent post exists in the Respondent for the purpose of clearning septic tanks and the work done by the Petitioner is not perennial in nature has not been denied as incorrect or false . For the averment of the Petitioner in his Claim Statement that the non-employment of the Petitioner amounts to retrenchment has not been proved with substantial acceptabie evidence. Inthe absence of proof for the claim of the Petitioner that he has put in continuous service as defined under section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, the question of issuing notice , payment of notice pay and compensation and conducting an enquiry does not arise . As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent that the temporary engagement of Casual Labourers occasionally by the Respondent will not vest any right on the Petitioner to claim benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 alleging contravention of Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. So , under such circumstances, when there is no question of termination of service of the Petitioner , who was admittedly engaged as a casual employee on daily wages for the work of non - permanent nature and as and when it is required , it cannot be said that 1154 G1/ 03-17 3520

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003/VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

BETWEEN :

: I Party/Workman

Sri A. Kajendran

AND

: II Party/Management

The General Manager , Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi , Chennai .

Appearance:

For the Workman : M/ s . K. M. Ramesh , K. Viswanathan & A.N. Kumar , Advocates.

For the Management

SriK.M. Venugopal , ACGSC.

The Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section (1 ) and Sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , have referred the concerned industrial dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L- 14012/9 /2000/IR(DU ) dated 31-7-2000.

On receipt of the order of reference from the Government of India Ministry of Labour, this case has been taken on file as 1.D. No. 81/2000 and notices were sent the parties to the dispute by registered post, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 5-12-2000 to file their respective Claim Statement and Counter Statement and tó prosecute this case further . Accordingly , the learned counsel on record on either side have filed their respective claim statement and counter statement and prosecutedthis case further.

Upon perusing the Claim Statement , Counter Statement, oral and documentary evidence let in on either side, the other material papers on record , after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration , this Tribunal has passed the following:-

AWARD

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above mentioned order of reference by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :-

"Whether the termination of Shri A. Kajendran , CivilianMotorDriver from employment by the management ofHeavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled? "

2. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the I Party/Workman Sri A. Kajendran (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) are briefly as follows: -

as a permanent workman in the cadre of Civilian Motor Driver by, an order dated 7-6-84. The I Party had been discharging his duties faithfully , efficiently , sincerely ever since the date of his appointment under the 11 Party/ Management . All of a sudden , the II Party /Management issued a charge memo dated 13-6-97 to the Petitioner alleging that he had committed a misconduct of assaulting one Sri S. Ambikapathy, a former Civilian Motor Driver on 28-2-97 at about 9.15 hrs . and that was witnessed by other drivers . No such incident ever took place either on the specified date or any date earlier or subsequently. The delay in issuing the charge memo to the Petitioner after more than four months from the date of alleged incident had not been explained by the II Party/Management . On receipt of the charge memo , the Petitioner submitted his explanation on 9-7-2000 , wherein he denied the charges in toto. The Petitioner was placed under suspension for that alleged incident by an order dated 23-4-98 . It was done as ameasure of victimisation and unfair labour practice . On the first day ofthe enquiry on 8-11-97, the Enquiry Officer questioned the Petitioner as to whether he pleads guilty or not, the Petitioner pleaded not guilty and had requested two weeks time for engaging a defence assistant . By a letter dated 11-11-97 the Petitioner was intimated by the Enquiry Officer that the 2nd sitting could be taken placed on 24-11-97 . On that day, no proceeding was held and it was adjourned without mentioning the next date . But the Petitioner received the letter dated 29-5-98 enclosing the copyofthe proceedings of the Court ofEnquiry concluding that the charges alleged against the Petitioner had been proved beyond reasonable doubt and directing the Petitioner to give his submissions on the report of the Enquiry Officer. He gave his submissions raising various objections and by stating that the enquiry had not been conducted in a manner known to law and he had not been providedwith a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Not satisfied with his explanation, the II Party/ Management by its letter dated 18-7-98 awarded the Petitioner the punishment of removal from service w.e.f. 18-7-98 . The Petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was rejected by the Additional Director General by his order dated 31-12-98 , who is not the Appellate Authority. The order of the appellate Authority is a biased one . The charges alleged against the Petitioner had not been proved in a manner known to law . The enquiry conucted by the II Party/Management was nothing but a farce , sham and pretence and not a genuinę one . The enquiry was not conducted in the presence of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was not given the fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Thus the enquiry said to have been conducted by the II Party/Management is neither fair nor proper but it was farce and stage-managed. The so called findings of the Enquiry Officer in his report holding the Petitioner guilty of the charges are perverse and bad in law . The said finding is one sided and partisan. The Disciplinary The Petitioner joined the services under the II Party/ Management Heavy Vehicles Factory , Avadi , Chennai in December , 1983 as a Casual Labour Driver . He was absorbed Authority had not applied his mind independently. The II 3521

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2003/वैशाख 13 , 1925

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Party/Management had mechanically passed the order of removing the Petitioner from service . The appeal has been taken up and disposed of by the Additional Director General, who is not the Appellate Authority . The Petitioner has raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ) Chennai . There the II Party/ Management raised an objection that the Petitioner's remedy was onlyto go before the Central Administrative Tribunal . TheAssistant Labour Commission (Central) Chennai , could not settle the dispute amicably in the conciliation proceedings . On his submission of failure of conciliation report , the Govt . has referred this dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication. Hence , it is prayed that he Hon'ble Tribunal maybe pleased to hold that the action of the II Party/ Management in removing the Petitioner from service is not justified and direct the II Party/Management to reinstate the Petitioner in service with back wages , continuity of service and all other attendant and consequential benefits.

3. The averments in the Counter Statement filed by the II Party/ Management Heavy Vehicles factory , Avadi (hereinafter refers to as Respondent ) are briefly as follows:-

imposed for the offence of proxy punching and violation ofmustering procedure . On 21-7-98 a penalty ofreduction inpay by one stage for one year with cumulative effect for the offence unauthorisedly taking the Govt. vehicle outside the factory andmanipulation of facts were imposed. During the period of 13 years the Petitioner has been given penalties four times for various offences and hence his claim of faithfulness , efficiency and sincerity in his service isstrictlydenied . One Sri S. Ambikapathi Ex. Civil Motor Driver, HeavyVehicles Factory had visited transport section at09.00 hours vide main gate casual visitor's pass . At 09.15 hrs . Sri S. Ambikapathy reported that he had been assaulted by Sri A. Kajendran . When security staff visited transport section , Sri S. Ambikapathy stated that he had visited transport section to receive some papers from Sri G. Kumar, CivilianMotor Driver, while he was coming out ofthe rest room for Civilian Motor Driver , Sri A. Kajendran assaulted him in the presence of the drivers S /Sri D. Santhanam , G. Kumar, M.S. Rajendrean , and A. Krishanmurty. The first three drivers had confirmed that Sri A. Kajendran had assaulted Sri S. Ambikapathy in their presence and gave their statements of witnesses . Sri A. Kajendran had also submitted a complaint dated 28-2-97 against Sri S. Ambikapathy. Hence, his plea that no incident had happened on 28-2-97 is false. The Chairman of the fact finding Board after conducting the enquiry submitted his report on 28-4-97 holding that Sri A. Kajendran had manhandled Sri S Ambikapathy . After that the Disciplinary Authority placed the Petitioner under suspension as per the CCS (CC& A). Rules , 1965. The Petitioner was charge sheeted underRule 14 of CCS ( CC & A) Rules . 1965 vide charge memo dated 13-6-97 for the offence of gross misconduct viz . assault of Sri S. Ambikapathy , ex -Govt . employee inside the factory and conduct unbecoming ofa Govt. Servant as per Rules 3 ( 1 )( iii ) ofCCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. There was no delay in issue of charge sheet . Based on another report dated 18-4-98 received from Security Officer/Works Manager (Admn -II ) Sri A. Kajendran was placedunder re-suspension on 23-4-98 in connection with another misconduct of assaulting durwan on duty . He was subsequently charge sheeted vide charge memo dated 2-7-98 for the offence of assault of Sri Andrews , Duty Durwan at Admin gate which is pending for further action . As per the provisions of Rule 14 of CCS (CC &A) Rules , 1965, the Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry and the Petitioner was given reasonable opportunity to defend hiscase . Witnesses cited in the charge sheet and also the witnesses named by the Petitioner had been examined by the Enquiry Officer . After conducting the enquiry in accordance with rules on the subject, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report with a finding that the charges framed against the Petitioner were established beyond doubt . As per rules , a copy of the enquiry report was forwarded to the Petitioner on 29-5-98 directing him to make his submissions . In response to this , the petitioner submitted his report dated June , 1998. The Disciplinary Authority The Ordnance Factory (Heavy Vehicles Factory) is not an industry under the definition of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. This factory performs sovereign functions of Central Govt. under Ministry ofDefence catering the needs of Indian Army . The Respondent is doing its statutory duties under Constitution of India . The dispute between an empolyee and the Govt . is not an industrial dispute at all.Hence, the reference is bad in law. This Hon'ble Tribunal may not have jurisdiction in this matter and this is not the appropriate forum for the litigant. The Respondent's factory isnot engaged in commericial or industrial activities and it cannot be described as an industry . It is not the object of the Respondent/Management to produce and distribute finished products to satisfy wants needs of the consumer community. Therefore , ifat all there is any service disputes, from the staffofthe Respondent only Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai has jurisdiction to decide any order passed by any department with regard to service cases . The Petitioner was removed from service on disciplinary grounds and not as a workman to attract Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He is not retrenched as a wrokman . He has been removed from service , after giving him an opportunity to be heard in a duly constituted Court of Inquiry . The employees of the Heavy Vehicles Factory are govemed by Central Civil Service Rules framed under Article 311 and 312 of the Constitution of India . Petitioner's disciplinary record and his past performance of his service was not satisfactory . On 3-10-94 a penalty ofcensure was imposed formoney lending . On 25-7-96 a penalty of withholding of increment for two years without cumulative effect was imposed for misusing Govt. vehicle and vioulation ofmain gate procedure . On 19-8-96 a penalty of reduction in pay by two stages for one year without cumulative effect was [PART li-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

3522

legal and justified? If not , to what refief the workman is entitled?"

Point:-

viz . General Manager , Heavy Vehicles Factory after examining the reply on the enquiry proceedings submitted bythe Petitioner and analysing the records/evidences and also considered the serious nature ofthe offence committed opined that the petitioner was unfit to continue to be employed as a Govt. Servant and imposed a penalty of removal form service vide order dated 18-7-98 . The petitioner's appeal preferred to Chairman , Ordnance Factory Board has been disposed by the Additional Dircetor General , Ordnance Factory since he is next higher authority to the Disciplinary Authority as per CCS (CCA) Rules . He opined that the appeal is without any merit and accordingly rejected the same by his order dated 31-12-98 . The penalty appealed against was not imposed by the same authority who decided the appeal . The compiainant Sri S. Ambikapathy was not cited as prosecutioin witness and was not examined , since he is a retired employee and a pensioner. The Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry in accordance with the rules submitted his report with tha finding that the charges framed against the Petitioner were established beyond doubt . Being the employee of the Govt, the Petitioner must adhere all the principles ofdignity and morality both inside and outside the factory . The Procedure as given in the rules has been followed and the Disciplinary Authority has imposed the penalty. Hence, It cannot be construed as victimisation . Therefore both factually and legally the order dismissing the I Party passed by the Disciplinary Authority is legally correct and in accordance with the principles of natural .justice and no Interference is called for . Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunai may be pleased to dismiss the claim of ths Petitioner.

4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, after thedocuments flied on either side have been marked as Ex. WI to W10 andMI to M7 respectively. a memo has been filedbythe 11 party/Management stating that the II Party is given up a domestic enquiry conducted against the I party andthe 11 Party may be permitted to let in evidence before this Tribunal to prove the charges levelied against the ! Party/Workman . The memo was recordad and the II Party/ Management was permitted to let in evidence befere this Tribunai to provethe charges against the I Party/Workmaសា, Onthe side of the Respondent/Management & witnesses have been examined and further 11 documents have been marked as Exhibits . M8 to M18 . The Petitioner has been examined himself as WW1 and two more documents have bean marked on his side as Ex . Wii and W12 . The learned counsel on either side had advanced their respective arguments.

5. The point for may consideration is-

This is an Industriai dispute raisedby the petitioner/ Workman Sri A. Kajendran against the Il party/ Management, Heavy Vehicles Factory , Avadi , Chennai , challenging the action ofthe Respondent/Management in terminating him from service as Civliian Motor Driver as illegal and unjustified. It is alleged that the Petitioner was issued a charge memo for his alleged misconduct of assaulting one Sri S. Ambikapathy former Civilian Motor Driver of Heavy Vehicles Factory when he came to the factory on 28-2-97 . It is also alleged that a domestic enquiry was conducted for the alleged misconduct mentioned in the charge memo. It is the definite avermaent of the petitloner/Workman in his Claim Statement that no enquiry was conducted in his presence and he was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to dafend himself and the enquiry conductedby the II Party/Management is neither fair nor proper and In that domestic enquiry the alleged victim has not been cited as a witness and he has not been sxamined in the presence of the Petitioner, the charge sheeted employee and that other prosecution witnesses also have not been examined in the presenca of the Petitioner and he has not been given reasonable opportunity todefend himself effectively . In the Counter Statement, it is alleged that the alieged victim Sri S. Ambikapathy was not eited as witness and was not examined since he was a retired employee and a pensioner. Ex , M4 is the xerox copy ofthe charge memo dated 13-6-97 issued to the Petitioner. Ex. WI is the xerox copy ofthe reply given by the petitioner dated 9-7-97 for the charge memo . He has simply stated in his reply that he piead not gulity of the charges levelisd against him . Ex. W6 is the xerox coyp of the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry authority holding that the charge framed against the Petitioner is proved bayond doubt . That report has been forwarded to the Petitloner with a covering fetter dated 29-5-98 informing him that if he wish to make any representation or submission , he can do so in writing tothe Diselplinary Authority within 15 days of the receipt ofthat letter . Ex . W7 Is the xerox copy ofthe reply given by the Petitioner for the findings of the enquiry authority. He has stated in his reply that the wholly enquiry is one sided and fair opportunity of being heard has been denied to him .After the documents on either side have been marked by consent as Ex . W1 to W10 and M1 to M7 a memo has been filled by the Il party/Management stating that the II Party is given up the domestic enquiry conducted against the I Party and the 11 Party may be permitted to let in evidence beforethis Tribnunal to prove the charges levelled against the I Party/Workman . The said memo has been recorded and the Il party/Management was permittedto let in evidence before this Tribunal to prove the charges lovelled against the 1 Party/Workman/ Accordingly, the "Whethar the termination of Shri A. Kajendran, Civilian Motor Driver from employment by the management ofHeavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi ie 3523 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2003 /वैशाख 13 , 1925

[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 (11 ) ]

management has examined eight witnesses including the alleged victim MW1 . On the side ofthe Petitioner/Workman , the Petitioner himself has examined as WW1 . In addition tothe documents already exhibited on elther side , two more documents on the side of the Petitioner and 11 more documents on the side of the management have been exhibited as W11 and W12 and M8 to M18 respectively.

letter since Sri A. Kajendran came with some Civilian Motor Drivers and requested him to go for compromise. That compromise letter wherein he put his signature is Ex . W4. It is also his evidence that he contents of Ex . W4 are true . in the cross examination by the counsel for the pstitioner, hs would say that the wording fight became intensified and the co-employees took us assail and he does not know what is written in the complaint and it is not correct if it in mentioned in the complaint that Mr. Gajendran had assaulted him and no incident ilka quarrei involving physical force was taken place . MW2 Sri D. Santhanam had deposed that the incident took place at about 9.00 am on 25-8-97 and that Sri S. Ambikapathy and Sri A. Kajendranwere quarrelled where he was altting and himssif and Rajendran went and separated them and he has not seen Gajendran assaulted Sri S. Ambikapathy and he deposed in the departmental enquiry about this Incident . He would further say that he does not know whether Ambikapathy withdrew his complaint and he had put his signature in Ex . M2 kept ready in the section and what It is mentioned Ex . M2 Is as assault is incorrect MW3 Mr. Rajendran would depose that on that day there was a quarrel and Sri S. Ambikapathy and Mr. Gajendran and that when they about to assault one another, ha Intervened and separated him and the management asked him to give it In writing as what had happened . So gave it in writing about this incident . The xarox copy of that written submission with regared to that incident is Ex . M8 and was examined as a witness for the management in the domestic enquiry. In the cross examination , he has stated that he was not threatened by the management that if he does not depose in favour of the management he will be issued a charge sheet , but ha has one such fear . MW4 Kumarwould depose that he has not sean any untoward Incident on that day and that he had not given written reply dated 28-2-96. But after perusings the documant , he accepts that the signature put as the bottom of the document aa O. Kumar in English is his signature and he had put his signature in that document after reading the contents therein . he has aiso edmitted that in the domestic enquiry he deposed as a witness for the management. MWS Mr. Mohan would depose that there was only a wordy quarrel between Sri S. Ambikapathy and Sri A. Kajendran and when that wordy quarrel reached an intense stage they interfered and separated them and he had been examined about this Incident and he had given a statement as to what had happened and subscribed his signature in that statement . Ex .MW6 Mr. Varghese would say in his evidence that the ex -driver Sri S. Ambikapathy came ineide and that when he was entaring the room he was scolding generally and Srl . A. Kajendran asked Sri S. Ambikapathy as towhom he was holding and that when they were having the wordy quarrel , there were six or seven drivers with him and they separated them and he has also signed the statemant recorded by the Enquiry Officer when he gave evidence about this incident. MW7 Mr. Krishnamurthy woulddepose 6. It is stated in the charge memo Ex. M4 that the Petitioner Sri A. Kajendran while functioning as Civilian Motor Driver in Heavy Vehicles Factory. Avadi , has committed acts amounting to gross misconduct viz . assault of Sri S. Ambikapathy, an Ex -Govt , employee inside the factory and conduct unbecoming of a Govt . servant as per rule 3 ( 1 )( Ill ) ofCCS (conduct) Rules . 1964, it is further alleged that it has been reported that on 28-2-1997 at about 9.15 hrs . Sri S. Ambikapathy, Ex - Civilian Motor Driver , Heavy Vehicles Factory visited the Factory through main gate on casual visitors ' pass (No. 064146) to collect some papers from transport section. While he was coming out of the section , near rest room Sri A. Kajendran has assnuited Sri Ambikapathy in the presence of other drivers and that S/Sri Santhanam , Civilian Motor Driver , M. S. Rajendran , Civilian Motor Driver, C. Kumar, Civilian Motor Driver , and Sri S. Ambikapathy Ex - Civilian Motor Driver have given statements on the sme day. As stated already for this charge memo, the Petitioner has given his reply under Ex . Wi simply stating that he pisad not guilty to the charges levelled against him . He has not statad specifically that no such incidant as alleged in the charge memo had taken place on that day and he has not assaulted the ex-Civilian Motor Driver Sri S. Ambikapathy as stated in the charge memo . The victim Sri S Ambikapathy has been exmined as MWI before this Tribunal . It is his evidenca that on 28-2-97 morning he went to Heavy Vehicles Factory for getting arrears amount due to him from that factory and when hewas talking with his co-emplyees at about 9.15 am the Petitioner Sri A. Kajendran came and askad him in respect of Association matter and when he replied him that hedoes not know about it, since he had retired from service, the Petitioner scolded him in a flithy language and attempted to assault him and that before the Petitioner asault him, he sscaped from that place and that petitioner did not fisted him on his face. It is his further evidence that he reported this incident orally to Foreman John and he subscribed his signature in the written compliant and he don't remember who has written it. When he was shown tha written sompilant after perusing the same , admits that the signature available there is his signature , He would further say that when this ineldent took place Sri D. Santhanam , M. S. Rajendran and others were present and all of them are Civlian Motor Drivers and they knew this incident . He would also so that he gave a compromise letter to Sri A. Kajendran as drafted by Sri V. V. Ganasan and Mr. Sri A. Kajendran got that compromise letter for the departmental enquiry and that he gave that compromise 3524

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii)]

atthe incident were not aware of the compromise and they got the compromise reduced into writing by a common man . He has also admitted that he had been given punishment earlier for his misconducts thrice .

8. From his admission as well as the evidence of MW8 with the documents Ex.M9 to M 16 it is seen that the Petitioner has been punished for his earlier misconducts and his past service cannot said to be blemishless as stated by him in his Claim Statement . His averment in the Claim Statement that he had been discharging his duties faithfully, efficiently and sincerely ever since his date of appointment underthe II Party/ Management are false and proved to be incorrect by acceptable oral and documentary evidence on the side of the Respondent/ Management .

thathe does not know anything about the occurrence .M8 the legal Assistant of Heavy Vehicles Factory deeposed that the Petitioner was awarded minor as well as major penalty for his misconducts committed by him in his period of service of 14 years . The xerox copy of the charge sheet dated 10-12-91 for his misconduct of money lending without obtaining permission from the Respondent/management and for that he was imposed penalty by an order dated 3-10-94 . The xerox copy of the same is Ex.M12 . He would further say that the xerox copy of the charge memo dated 5-4-96 to the Petitioner for misusing the Govt . vehicle is Ex . M11 and Ex . M12 is the xerox copy of the order dated 25-7-96 imposing penalty of withholding increments for two years with cumulative effect and that Ex.M13 is the xerox copy of the another charge memo dated 4-5-96 issued to the Petitioner for his misconduct of proxy punching and Ex.M14 is the xerox copy of the penalty order dated 19-8-96 imposing the penalty on the Petitioner by reduction ofhis then pay by two stages for one year with cumulative effect and that Ex . M15 is the xerox copy of the charge memo dated 6-5-95 for his misconduct of unauthorisedly taking the Govt. Vehicle out side the factory and Ex.M16 is the xerox copy of the order dated 27-1-98 imposing the penalty to the Petitioner of reduction in pay by one stage for one year with cumulative effect and that Ex. M17 is the xerox copy of the written complaint dated 28-2-97 given to the General Manager , heavy Vehicles Factory , Avadi and Ex. M2, M8 and M18 are the Xerox copies ofwritten statements given by Sri S. Santhanam , Rajendran and Kumar respectively as eye witnesses to this occurrence.

7. The Petitioner as WWI has stated in his proof of affidavitwhich has been treated as Chief Examination that no such incident as stated in the charge memo ever took place either on that day stated therein and that on 28-2-97 he reported for duty and was waiting for instructions from hissuperiors regarding his work and at that time about 9.15 am Sri S.Ambikapathy, retired Civilian Motor Driver came there . He asked him about the fringe benefits available to the drivers and during their discussion some heated words were exchanged between them and other than this , no such incident of himself assaulting Shi . S. Ambikapathy as stated in the charge memo had taken place . In the cross examination it is this evidence that Sri S. Ambikapathy MWI gave a complaint against him alleging that the Petitioner had assaulted him on 28-2-97 . He has further admitted in the cross examination that when this incident took place Mr. Santhanam, Rajendran, Kumar Mohan and Verghese were all there and they had witnesses as what had happened at that incident and they have also given complaint against him to the higher official . It is his further admission in the cross examination that Sri S. Ambikapathy came for compromise , he would further admit that when there is no such incident took place, there is no necessity for compromising the matter and he accepted the compromise and the other four persons, who were present

9. The witnesses examined on the side of the Respondent/ Management as MW1 to MW7 have not fully supported the case of the prosecution for the reasons best known to them. On the other hand they had admitted in their respective evidence that they have given statements in respect of this incident on 28-2-97 itself under Ex . M2, M8 , M17 and M18 respectively. In all these statements , it has been categorically stated that the Petitioner has assaulted Sri S. Ambikapathy Ex- Civilian Motor Driver MW1 . It is not their evidence that they have been compelled to give such statements by the management quite contrary towhat had happened as an incident on that date . From all these documents and also from the evidence of MWs and WW1 it is seen that an incident has taken place on 28-2-97 wherein the Petitioner Sri A. Kajendran has been involved . WW1 the Petitioner has admitted in the cross examination that Sri S. Ambikapathy MW1 gave a complaint against him alleging that he had assaulted him on 28-2-97 and the matter has been compromised later . MW1 has admitted thathe gave a compromise letter to Mr. Kajendran and Sri . A. Kajendran got that compromise letter for the departmental enquiry and he gave that compromise letter , since Sri A. Kajendran came with some Civilian Motor Drivers and requested him to go for a compromise and the contents of the compromise letter Ex. W4 are true . The Petitioner as WW1 also has stated in his evidence that Sri . SAmbikapathy came for compromise and he accepted for compromise and the other four persons who were present at the incident were not aware of the compromise and they got the compromise reduced to writing by a common man . Ex. W4 reads clearly that Petitioner had given a complaint ofassault by A. Kajendran on 28-2-97 and since Kajendran had made adequate amends they have come to a compromise on the issue and therefore , he requested his complaint against Sr. A. Kajendran may please be considered as withdrawn . From this it is evident, that there was an assault incident taken place on 28-2-97 for which a complaint was given by MWI Sri S. Ambikapathy on the same day. If really no such incident has taken place and the Petitioner has not assaulted Sri S. Ambikapathy on 3525 भारत का राजपत्र: मई 3, 2003/वैशाख 13, 1925

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

MW7 Sri . A. Krishnamoorthy

MW8 Shri. Venkatanarayana

Documents Exhibited:--

Forthe I Party/ Workman :

Ex.No. Date

Description

9-07-97 Xerox copy ofthe explanation submitted by Petitioner to charge memo.

W2 30-07-97 Xerox copy of the order of the Respondent Appointing Enquiry Officer.

8-11-97 Xerox copy of the enquiry proceedings .

6-05-98

Xerox copy of the letter of Sri S. Ambikapathy to Respondent .

29-05-98

Xerox copy of the show cause memo issued to Petitioner .

Nill Xerox copy ofthe enquiry report .

W7 June, 1998 Xerox copy of the explanation submitted by the Petitioner to show cause notice .

1-09-98

Xerox copy of the appeal preferredby the Petitioner to Appellate Authority.

W9 31-12-98 Xerox copy of the order ofthe Appellate Authority .

28-2-97 as MWI has mentioned in his complaint Ex . M18 , there is no necessity for Ml Sri S. Ambikapathy to prefer a complaint under Ex . M18 and to mention the same in his compromise letter under Ex . W4 and there is no necessity for the other witnesses also to give statements about this incident under Ex . M2 , M8 and M17 and there is no necessity for MWI give a letter under Ex. W4 stating that he has compromised the matter and he is withdrawing his complaint. It is the categorical evidence of MW1 that Petitioner came along with other Civilian Motor Drivers and requested him to give a letter of compromise for the departmental enquiry , so he gave Ex . W4 and the contents ofEx .W4 are true . For the reasons best known to them they have come forward and deposed before this Court contrary to their earlier respective statements and complaints . So, under such circumstances , it is evidently clear that an incident has taken place as mentioned in the charge memo Ex. M4 and for that act of misconduct on the basis of the materials placed before the Enquiry Officer has given a finding that the charges levelled against the Petitioner has been proved and the same has been accepted by the Disciplinary Authority for imposing a penalty against the Petitioner/Workman for his proved misconduct. From the evidence let in before this Tribunal on either side, it can be easily concluded that the Petitioner/Workman has assaulted the ex- employee of the Respondent/ Management within the factory premises and thereby committed a gross misconducts , which is unbecoming of a Govt . servant as per Rule 3 ( 1 ) ( iii ) ofCCS (conduct) Rules , 1964. Therefore, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 18-7-98 under original of Ex . M7 as a penalty of removal from service from 18-7-98 can be held as legal andjustified. Hence, the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.

W10 16-01-98

10. In the result, an Award is passed holding that the concerned workman Sri A. Kajendran is not entitled for any relief. No Cost .

Xerox copy of the letter from General Manager of Respondent/ Management to Petitioner enclosing the order or Appellate Authority.

Nil

W11

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed byhim correct and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 2nd April, 2003.)

Appled preferred by the Petitioner to Appellate Authority atCalcutta.

K. KARTHIKEYAN , Presiding Officer

17-02-99

W12

Witnesses Examined:-.

Order of the Chairman , Ordance Factory Board, Calcutta as Appellate Authority .

For the 1 Party/ Workman : WW1 Sri A. Kajendran

For the II Party/ Management :-

For the 11 Party/Management : MW1 Sri . S. Ambikapathy

Ex. No. Date

Description MW2Sri . D. Santhanam

28-02-97

MW3 Sri . M.S. Rajendran

Xerox copy ofthe report submitted by Senior Security Officer To respondent/ Management .

MW4 Sri. G. Kumar

28-02-97

MW5 Sri . B. Mohan

MW6 Sri A. Varghese

Xerox copy ofthe statement given by Sri Santhanam . CMD To Respondent/ Management .

3526

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1925

M3 13-03-97 Xerox copy of the suspension order M11 issued to Petitioner by Respondent/ Management.

M4 13-06-97 Xerox copy of the charge sheet issued to Petitioner.

18-04-98 Xerox copy of the report submitted by Security Officer Respondent/ Management. To M6 23-04-98 Xerox copy of the order issued by Respondent/Management Extending the suspension period ofthe Petitioner .

M7 18-07-98 Xerox copy of the order passed by the General Manager removing the Petitioner from service .

M8 28-02-97 Xerox copy of the statement given by CMD to Respondent.

10-12-91 Xerox copy of the chargesheet issued to Petitioner.

M10 03-10-94 Xerox copy ofthe order for penalty of censure issued to Petitioner .

[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( li )] 05-04-96 Xerox copy of the chargesheet Issued to Petitioner.

25-07-96

M12

Xerox copy of the order issued to Petitioner with regard to the penalty ofwithholding of increment .

04-05-96

M13

Xerox copy of the chargesheet issued to Petitioner for proxy punching.

M14 19-08-96 Xerox copy of the order issued to Petitioner.

M15 06-05-95 Xerox copy of the memo issued to to Petitioner for taking the Govt. Vehicie Unauthorisedly.

M16 27-01-98 Xerox copy of the order issuedto Petitioner imposing penalty of Reduction in pay by one stage .

M17 28-02-97 Xerox copy of the statement given by Sri . G. Kumar to Respondent/ Management.

Nil

M18

Xerox copy oftheletter from Sri . S. Ambikabathy to the General Manager of the Respondent .

Printed by the Manager, Govt . of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054.